: 


GIFT   OF 


OBSERVATIONS  AND  COMM 


•doy 

"OO  1VD 


S1V30JI8 

SNIVHD  SSV10  • 

SM3UINO 

S3SV3  WflNIWf 

S3SSV1D  VH: 

SNIVHD  QNV  S3113N30i 


THE 

REAL  LINCOLN 


FROM  THE  TESTIMONY  OF  HIS 
CONTEMPORARIES 


BY 
CHARLES    L.   C.  MINOR,  M.   A.,  LL.  D. 


Second  Edition,  Revised  and  Enlarged 


RICHMOND,  VA.  : 

EVERETT  WADDEY  Co. 
1904 


,4 

' 


Copyright,  1904 
by  Everett  Waddey  Company 


V 


CONTENTS. 


Introduction  by  the  Editors 5 

Sketch  of  the  Author 7 

Preface 9 

CHAPTER  I. 
Was  Lincoln  Heroic? 15 

CHAPTER  II. 
Was  Lincoln  a  Christian? 25 

CHAPTER  III. 

Lincoln's  Jokes  and  Stories 29 

CHAPTER  IV. 

Estimates  of  Lincoln 33 

CHAPTER  V. 
Did  Lincoln  Ever  Intend  that  the  Masters  Be  Paid  for  Their 

Slaves 41 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Opposition  to  Abolition  Before  the  War 45 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Secession  Long  Threatened.     Coercion  Never  Seriously  Thought 

of  Till  1861 57 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Change  of  the  Issue — Star  of  the  West 72 

CHAPTER  IX. 

Resistance  in  Congress 77 

CHAPTER  X. 

Opposition  in  the  Regular  Army 81 

CHAPTER  XI. 

Opposition  in  the  Volunteer  Army 84 

CHAPTER  XII. 

Opposition  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation 89 

CHAPTER  XIII. 

In  What  Proportion  Divided 94 

(3) 


4  The  Real  Lincoln. 

CHAPTER  XIV. 
Attitude  of  England 103 

CHAPTER  XV. 
Despotism  Threatened 108 

CHAPTER  XVI. 

Outline  of  the  Despotism 117 

CHAPTER  XVII. 

General  Opposition  and  Resistance  to  Coercion  and  to  Eman 
cipation 123 

CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Despotism  in  Maryland 134 

CHAPTER  XIX. 

Despotism  in  Kentucky 144 

CHAPTER  XX. 

Despotism  in  Indiana 147 

CHAPTER  XXI. 
Attitude  of  Ohio  and  Illinois 155 

CHAPTER  XXII. 
Attitude  of  Philadelphia  and  New  York 161 

CHAPTER  XXIII. 
Attitude  of  Iowa  and  Other  States 169 

CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Purpose  of  Emancipation 176 

CHAPTER  XXV. 

Opposition  to  Lincoln's  Re-Election 185 

CHAPTER  XXVI. 
How  Lincoln  Got  Himself  Re-Elected 189 

CHAPTER  XXVII. 
Apotheosis  of  Lincoln 202 

CHAPTER  XXVIII. 
What  This  Book  Would  Teach 213 

APPENDIX. 


INTRODUCTION  BY  THE  EDITORS. 


The  manuscript  of  this  volume  was  completed  by  Dr. 
Minor  only  a  few  days  before  his  death.  After  the  issue 
of  the  first  edition,  in  1901,  he  began  this,  thinking  that  a 
second  edition  would  be  needed.  When  the  call  for  a 
second  edition  came,  he  had  gathered  and  worked  in 
much  new  matter,  so  that  it  has  become  a  book  now  in 
stead  of  a  pamphlet. 

To  the  undersigned,  his  brother  and  sister,  was  com 
mitted  the  charge  of  editing  it — a  labor  of  love  in  a  double 
sense,  for  it  is  hard  to  say  which  they  love  most,  the  writer 
or  the  cause  of  political  and  historic  truth  so  ably  cham 
pioned  by  him.  It  is  all  his  work — his  last  work — to 
which  might  be  appended  the  words  of  the  Roman  gladi 
ator:  moriturm  vos  saluto. 

It  is  unnecessary  for  the  editors  to  say  anything  as  to 
the  purpose  for  which  this  book  was  written;  for  this  is 
fully  stated  in  the  preface  by  the  author,  and  the  conclud 
ing  words  of  the  last  chapter  show  how  the  facts  set  forth, 
and  so  fully  proved  in  this  book,  tend  to  allay  rather  than 
to  excite  sectional  feeling  between  North  and  South.  If 
in  doing  this  it  has  been  necessary  for  the  writer  to  set  forth 
facts  which  compel  Lincoln's  admirers  to  esteem  him  less, 
let  not  the  reader  blame  the  author  for  lack  of  charity; 
but  rather  consider  that  truth  is  a  very  precious  thing, 
and  that  only  truth  could  come  from  such  an  array  of  un 
willing  witnesses  as  has  been  marshalled  here. 

No  man  ever  lived  more  willing  than  the  author  to  give 
due  homage  to  worth,  and  more  unwilling  to  take  from  a 

(5) 


6  l  'The  Real  Lincoln. 

hero  any  portion  of  his  meed  of  praise;  but  to  restore  in 
some  measure  that  good-will  between  the  sections  which 
he  had  known  when  a  boy,  was  an  object  with  him  beyond 
all  price,  and  well  worth  his  utmost  efforts  in  the  cause  of 
truth,  even  though  it  should  compel  the  world  to  place  one 
of  its  heroes  on  a  lower  pedestal. 

True  here,  as  of  all  truth,  are  the  words  of  the  Master, 
"Ye  shall  know  the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  you 
free/'  from  prejudice,  passion,  and  all  uncharitableness. 

BERKELEY  MINOR, 
MARY  WILLIS  MINOR. 


SKETCH  OF  THE  AUTHOE. 


Charles  Land  on  Carter  Minor  was  the  eldest  son  of  Lucius  H.  Minor 
of  "Edgewood,"  Hanover  county,  Virginia.  His  mother  was  Catharine 
Frances  Berkeley.  He  was  born  December  3d,  1835.  He  received 
the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  the  University  of  Virginia  in  1857. 

The  beginning  of  the  War  between  the  States  found  him  teaching 
at  Bloomfield,  LeRoy  Broun's  School,  in  Albemarle  county,  Vir 
ginia.  He  volunteered  very  shortly  after  the  secession  of  his  native 
State,  and  for  some  time  served  as  a  private  in  the  Second  Virginia 
Cavalry,  Munford's  regiment,  seeing  much  active  service  about  Ma- 
nassas  and  in  "Stonewall"  Jackson's  Valley  Campaign;  but  later  by 
competitive  examination  received  a  captain's  commission  in  the 
Ordnance  Department,  and  served  on  General  Sam.  Jones'  staff  in 
Southwest  Virginia,  and  was  his  chief  of  ordnance  when  in  command 
at  Charleston,  South  Carolina.  Captain  Minor's  last  assignment  was 
with  General  Gorgas  as  executive  officer  at  the  Richmond  Arsenal, 
where  he  was  when  the  war  ended. 

After  the  war  he  conducted  a  school  in  Lynchburg,  Virginia,  for 
some  years.  Then  he  held  a  chair  in  the  University  of  the  South 
at  Sewanee,  Tennessee,  till  he  was  called  to  be  the  first  president 
of  the  Virginia  Agricultural  and  Mechanical  College,  now  the  Virginia 
Polytechnic  Institute,  at  Blacksburg,  Virginia,  where  he  was  for  eight 
years.  He  subsequently  conducted  the  Shenandoah  Valley  Academy 
at  Winchester,  Virginia,  for  a  good  many  years,  and  finally,  while 
assistant  principal  of  the  Episcopal  High  School,  at  Alexandria, 
Virginia,  an  attack  of  grip  so  injured  his  health,  that  he  was  able 
thereafter  only  to  take  private  pupils  in  Baltimore. 

During  these  later  years  he  gave  much  time  to  historical  and  politi 
cal  studies,  particularly  of  the  times  of  the  Civil  War,  and  wrote  a 
good  deal  on  these  subjects  in  Baltimore  and  Richmond  papers. 

In  1874  Dr.  Minor  received  the  degree  of  LL.D.  from  William 
and  Mary  College. 

In  1860  he  married  Miss  Fanny  Annsley  Cazenove,  of  Alexandria, 
Virginia.  Two  children  survive  him,  Fanny,  wife  of  Rev.  James 
F.  Plummer  of  Clarksburg,  West  Virginia,  and  Anne,  wife  of  Rev 
A.  G.  Grinnan  of  Weston,  West  Virginia. 

(  7) 


8  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Dr.  Minor  died  suddenly,  July  13,  1903,  at  "Beaulieu"  in  Albemarle 
county,  Virginia,  the  residence  of  his  brother-in-law,  R.  M.  Fon 
taine,  Esq. 

Dr.  Minor  was  a  devout  Christian  and  loyal  churchman;  for  many 
years  of  his  life  a  vestryman,  sometimes  a  delegate  in  the  Councils 
of  the  diocese;  always  striving  to  do  his  duty  in  that  state  of  life 
unto  which  it  pleased  God  to  call  him.  The  writer  knows  none  who 
have  more  fully  illustrated  the  character  of  the  Christian  gentleman 
as  drawn  by  Thackeray  in  the  "End  of  the  Play": 

"  Come  wealth  or  want,  come  good  or  ill, 

Let  young  and  old  accept  their  part, 
And  bow  before  this  awful  will, 

And  bear  it  with  an  honest  heart. 
Who  misses  or  who  wins  the  prize, — 

Go,  lose  or  conquer  as  you  can; 
But  if  you  fail  or  if  you  rise, 

Be  each,  pray  God,  a  gentleman." 


PREFACE. 


Since  the  publication  of  a  pamphlet  called  The  Real 
Lincoln,  the  author  has  found  in  the  Official  Records  of  the 
Union  Army,  published  by  the  United  States  War  Depart 
ment,  and  in  other  works  by  people  of  Northern  sympathies, 
much  that  is  interesting  and  curious  to  corroborate  the 
points  made  in  the  pamphlet,  and  to  establish  other  points 
of  no  less  value  for  the  vindication  of  the  cause  of  the 
South,  and  for  the  establishment  of  the  conclusion  arrived 
at  on  the  57th  page  of  the  pamphlet  that  "  the  North  and 
West  were  never  enemies  of  the  South" — a  conclusion 
as  little  expected  and  as  surprising  to  the  author  as  it  can 
be  to  any  one  else.  The  final  result  of  these  studies  is 
herewith  given  in  a  volume  with  the  same  title  as  the  pam 
phlet,  meeting  the  demand  for  a  second  edition  of  that 
work,  but  largely  increased  by  part  of  the  accumulations 
above  described. 

Some  explanation  is  needed  of  the  nature  arid  aim  of 
the  work,  and  it  is  submitted,  as  follows: 

A  mistaken  estimate  of  Abraham  Lincoln  has  been 
spread  abroad  very  widely,  and  even  in  the  South  an  edi 
torial  in  a  leading  religious  paper  lately  said  as  follows: 
"Our  country  has  more  than  once  been  singularly 
fortunate  in  the  moral  character  and  the  admirable  per 
sonality  of  its  popular  heroes.  Washington,  Lincoln  and 
Lee  have  been  the  type  of  character  that  it  was  safe  to 
hold  up  to  the  admiration  of  their  own  age  and  the  imita 
tion  of  succeeding  generations."  In  the  North  the  paean 
of  praise  that  began  with  his  death  has  grown  to  such  ex 
travagance  that  he  has  been  called  by  one  eminent  popular 

(9) 


10  The  Real  Lincoln. 

speaker  "a  servant  and  follower  of  Jesus  Christ,"  and  by 
another  "  first  of  all  that  have  walked  the  earth  after  the 
Nazarene,"  and  on  his  late  birthday  a  eulogist  asked  us 
to  give  up  aspirations  for  a  heaven  where  Lincoln's  pres 
ence  is  not  assured.  A  very  distinguished  preacher,  on 
the  Easter  succeeding  the  Good  Friday  on  which  Lincoln 
was  assassinated,  called  him  "  a  Christian  man,  a  servant 
and  follower  of  Jesus  Christ—  .  .  .  one  whom  we 
have  revered  as  a  father,  and  loved  more  than  we  can  love 
any  human  friend,"  set  forth  a  comparison  between  his 
death  and  that  of  the  Saviour  of  Mankind,  likening  Wilkes 
Booth  to  Pilate,  and  ended  with,  "  Shall  we  not  say  of  the 
day,  it  is  fit?"  It  was  on  Good  Friday  that  Lincoln  was 
shot,  and  in  a  theatre. 

To  try  to  reawaken  or  to  foster  ill-will  between  the  North 
and  the  South  would  be  a  useless,  mischievous  and  most  cen 
surable  task,  and  it  will  be  seen  at  pages  213-214  of  this 
book  that  it  has  an  exactly  opposite  purpose,  but  it  is  a 
duty  to  correct  such  misrepresentations,  for. the  reason 
that  they  make  claims  for  Lincoln  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  concessions  of  grave  defects  in  him  that  are  made 
by  the  closest  associates  of  his  private  life;  by  the  most 
respectable  and  most  eulogistic  biographers  and  historians 
of  his  own  day  and  of  this  day,  at  home  and  abroad,  who 
have  described  his  character  and  career,  and  equally  incon 
sistent  with  the  estimates  of  him  by  the  greatest  and 
closest  associates  of  his  public  life,  and  by  a  very  large 
part  of  the  great  Northern  and  Western  Republican  leaders 
of  his  own  day.  The  fact  that  the  evidence  submitted 
comes  from  such  witnesses,  and  such  witnesses  only,  is 
the  chief  claim  that  this  book  has  upon  the  interest  and 


The  Real  Lincoln.  11 

confidence  of  its  readers,  and  attention  is  called  to  the 
extraordinary  cogency  of  such  evidence,  and  to  the  fact 
that  not  a  word  of  testimony  is  offered  out  of  the  mass 
that  might  be  offered  from  the  eminent  writers,  speakers, 
statesmen,  and  soldiers  who  took  the  Southern  side. 

In  the  Appendix  will  be  found,  in  alphabetical  order, 
the  names  of  all  the  witnesses  whose  evidence  is  submitted. 
Reference  is  invited  to  that  Appendix,  as  each  witness  is 
reached  by  the  reader,  and  especially  in  every  case  where 
the  reader  finds  it  hard  to  believe  the  evidence,  and  it 
will  be  found  that  each  is  included  in  one  of  the  above 
indicated  classes.  Only  old  and  exceptionally  well-in 
formed  men  of  this  day  are  likely  to  know  the  ample 
authority  with  which  these  witnesses  speak.  See  Lincoln 
himself;  see  Generals  U.  S.  Grant  and  Wm.  T.  Sherman; 
see  Lincoln's  greatest  Cabinet  Ministers,  Seward,  Chase, 
and  Stanton;  see,  among  the  foremost  leaders  of  thought 
and  action  of  their  day,  John  Sherman,  Ben  Wade,  and 
Thaddeus  Stevens;  see  representatives  of  the  highest 
intellectual  and  moral  standards,  Richard  Dana,  Edward 
Everett,  Charles  Francis  Adams,  and  Robert  Winthrop; 
see  the  most  ardent  and  prominent  Abolitionists,  Senator 
Sumner  and  Wendell  Phillips;  see  Horace  Greeley,  whose 
lofty  integrity  extorted  admiration  from  thousands  on 
whose  nearest  and  dearest  interests  his  Tribune  newspaper 
waged  a  war  as  deadly  as  it  was  honest ;  see  the  correspondent 
of  the  London  Times,  Russell ;  see  the  most  up-to-date  his 
torians  of  our  own  day,  Ida  Tarbell,  A.  K.  McClure, 
Schouler,  Ropes,  and  Rhodes;  and  see  the  most  intimate 
associates  of  Lincoln's  lifetime,  Lamon  and  Herndon,  who 
give  such  reasons  for  telling  not  the  good  only,  but  all 


12  The  Real  Lincoln. 

they  know  about  their  great  friend,  as  win  commendation 
from  the  latest  biographers  of  all,  Morse  and  Hapgood, 
whose  books  have  received  only  praise  from  the  American 
reading  public. 

The  following  objection  has  been  made  to  the  first  edi 
tion  of  this  work:  "What  has  the  author  himself  to  say 
about  Lincoln?  Nothing  is  found  from  the  author  him 
self;  only  what  other  people  have  said  or  written."  It 
was  the  author's  purpose  to  submit  the  testimony  of  cer 
tain  classes  above  described,  and  to  leave  the  reader  to 
draw  his  own  conclusions. 

Another  objection  has  been  offered,  that  this  book  gives 
only  the  bad  side  of  Lincoln,  and  not  the  good.  The 
author  makes  the  acknowledgment  that  the  largest  measure 
of  every  excellence — intellectual,  moral,  and  spiritual- 
has  been  claimed  for  Lincoln,  and  very  generally  conceded 
to  him,  and  space  need  not  be  given  to  reciting  those 
claims,  because  they  are  familiar  to  all  who  have  given 
the  least  attention  to  Lincoln's  place  in  the  world's  esteem, 
and  because  to  give  them  any  adequate  statement  would 
require  a  space  like  the  ten  very  large  volumes  in  which 
Nicolay  and  Hay  have  done  that  work  so  ably  and  with 
such  jealous  protection  of  their  hero's  good  name.  Not 
only  does  the  author  concede  that  these  comprehensive 
claims  have  been  made  and  have  been  generally  admitted, 
but  the  Appendix  shows  that  even  the  strongest  of  these 
claims  have  been  made,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  most  of 
the  very  witnesses  whose  testimony  is  quoted  in  this  book. 
To  reconcile  the  damaging  concessions  with  the  contradict 
ory  claims  by  the  same  witnesses  is  not  the  duty  of  the 
author  of  this  book.  An  examination  of  the  chapter  headed 


The  Real  Lincoln.  13 

Apotheosis  of  Lincoln  will,  however,  discover  some  expla 
nation  of  these  contradictions.  It  was  a  saying  of  Lord 
Somers  that  often  the  most  material  part  of  testimony  is 
that  on  which  the  witness  values  himself  the  least. 

A  third  objection  has  been  made,  that  this  book  gives 
the  testimony  of  Lincoln's  enemies.  Who  were  Lincoln's 
friends,  if  they  are  not  included  among  these  witnesses, 
and  which  of  these  witnesses  was  not  on  his  side  in  the 
great  contest? 


The  Eeal  Lincoln. 


CHAPTEE  I. 
Was  Lincoln  Heroic  ? 

BEFORE  considering  the  testimony  as  to  Lincoln's  moral 
and  religious  character  that  is  furnished  by  the  two 
intimate  friends  of  his  whole  lifetime,  Ward  H.  Lamon  and 
William  H.  Herndon,  readers  should  examine  carefully 
what  is  told  of  them  in  the  Appendix  under  their  names, 
in  order  to  see  the  extraordinary  collusiveness  of  their 
testimony.  Besides  this,  the  reader  will  find  proof  there 
that  when  no  one  of  the  many  distinguished  eulogists  of 
Lincoln  had  ventured  to  try  to  controvert  or  even  to  con 
tradict  what  Lamon  and  Herndon  call  their  "revelations " 
and  "ghastly  exposures"  about  Lincoln,  although  Lamon's 
book  was  published  as  long  ago  as  1872  and  Herndon's 
as  long  ago  as  1888,  defenders  of  Lincoln  were  reduced  to 
the  strait  of  publishing  as  late  as  the  years  1892  and  1895 
two  books  with  titles  similar  to  the  genuine  books  of 
Lamon  and  Herndon,  which  new  books  make  no  refer 
ence  to  the  existence  of  the  earlier  books,  contain  the 
frank  avowals  of  Lamon  and  Herndon  that  they  mean 
to  tell  all  the  gravest  faults  of  their  hero  along  with  his 
virtues  and  omit  the  "revelations"  and  "ghastly  expo 
sures." 

Among  the  heroic  traits  claimed  for  Lincoln  is  personal 
courage.     This  claim  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  his  care- 
US  ) 


16  The  Real  Lincoln. 

fully  concealed  midnight  ride  into  Washington  a  day  or 
two  before  his  inauguration.  A.  K.  McClure1  has  been 
at  no  small  pains  to  apologize  for  it,  describes  the  mid 
night  journey,  and  says:  "His  answer  to  solicitations  at 
a  dinner  given  him  by  Governor  Curtin  in  Harrisburg — 
to  go  as  he  did  go  to  Washington — was  substantially,  and 
I  think  exactly,  in  these  words:  'I  cannot  consent. 
What  would  the  nation  think  of  its  President  stealing 
into  the  Capital  like  a  thief  in  the  night.'  McClure 
calls  these  words  "painfully  pathetic."  Lamon  describes 
(Recollections  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  39,  et  seq.)  a  conference 
with  his  friends  in  Harrisburg  in  the  evening  of  the  same 
day,  in  which  conference  Lincoln  decided  to  make  the 
midnight  journey,"  though  warned  by  Colonel  Sumner 
that  it  "would  be  a  damned  piece  of  cowardice."  Lamon 
says  (Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  526,  et  seq.):  "Mr.  Lincoln  soon 
learned  to  regret  the  midnight  ride.  His  friends  re 
proached  him,  his  enemies  taunted  him.  He  was  con 
vinced  that  he  had  committed  a  grave  mistake  in  yielding 
to  the  solicitations  of  a  professional  spy  and  of  friends  too 
easily  alarmed.  He  saw  that  he  had  fled  from  a  danger 
purely  imaginary,  and  felt  the  shame  and  mortification 
natural  to  a  brave  man  under  such  circumstances.  .  .  ." 
The  Hon.  Henry  L.  Dawes  says  (Tributes  from  his  Asso 
ciates,  p.  4):  "He  never  altogether  lost  to  me  the  look 
with  which  he  met  the  curious  and,  for  the  moment,  not 
very  kind  gaze  of  the  House  of  Representatives  on  that 
first  morning  after  what  they  deemed  a  pusillanimous 
creep  into  Washington."  Lamon  was  (see  Appendix,  at 
his  name)  then  and  thereafter  to  the  end  of  his  life  the 

lLincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p.  46,  et  seq.,  and  Our  Presidents  and  How 
We  Make  Them,  p.  180  to  181,  et  seq. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  17 

intimate  friend  of  Lincoln,  had  come  with  him  from 
Springfield,  and  was  chosen2  as  the  one  heavily-armed 
companion  of  the  midnight  journey;  but  (Life  of  Lincoln, 
pp.  512-513)  he  expressly  declares  that  "it  is  perfectly 
manifest  that  there  was  no  conspiracy — no  conspiracy 
of  a  hundred,  of  fifty,  of  twenty,  of  three;  no  definite  pur 
pose  in  the  heart  of  even  one  man  to  murder  Mr.  Lincoln 
at  Baltimore." 

Dorothy  Lamon's  book,  Recollections  of  Abraham  Lincoln 
by  Ward  H.  Lamon,  though  its  object  seems  to  be  (see  Ap 
pendix  at  name  of  Lamon)  to  conceal  some  of  Lincoln's 
most  evil  traits,  quotes  him  as  saying  to  Lamon,  "  You  also 
know  that  the  way  we  skulked  into  this  city  in  the  first 
place  has  been  a  source  of  shame  and  regret  to  me,  for  it 
did  look  so  cowardly."  Horace  Greeley  (American  Conflict, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  421)  likened  Lincoln  to  "a  hunted  fugitive." 
Rhodes  says  of  the  midnight  journey  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  304):  "This  drew  ridicule 
from  his  enemies  and  expressions  of  regret  from  many  of 
his  well  wishers."  Nicolay  and  Hay  devote  a  chapter 
(XX.  of  Vol.  III.)  to  it,  but  do  not  claim  that  there  was 
any  danger.  Morse,  as  jealous  to  defend  Lincoln  as  any 
other,  concedes  that  there  was  no  danger  at  all,  and  that 
"  Lamon's  account  of  it  ....  is  doubtless  the  most 
trustworthy,"  and  records  Lincoln's  regret  and  shame  for 
what  he  had  done.3 

Ida  Tarbell  describes  (McClure's  Magazine  for  January 
and  February,  1900)  Lincoln's  progress  through  the  city 
to  his  inaugural  ceremony — the  strong  military  force, 
including  artillery,  assembled  to  protect  him — "platoons 

2A.  K.  McClure's  Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p.  46,  et  seq. 

3See  Appendix  at  Morse's  name,  and  his  Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  197,  et  seq. 


18  The  Real  Lincoln. 

of  soldiers"  at  the  street  corners,  "groups  of  riflemen  on 
the  housetops/'  and  shows  how  he  passed  through  a  board 
tunnel  into  the  Capitol  building,  "with  fifty  or  sixty  sol 
diers  under  the  platform,"  and  that  "two  batteries  of  artil 
lery  were  in  adjacent  streets  and  a  ring  of  volunteers 
surrounded  the  waiting  crowd."  Dr.  E.  Benjamin  An 
drews  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  324)  gives 
nearly  the  same  account,  but  does  not  mention  the  tunnel. 

Schouler  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p. 
6,  et  seq.):  "The  carriage  in  which  Lincoln  and  Bu 
chanan  came  and  returned  over  Pennsylvania  avenue  had 
been  closely  guarded  in  front  and  rear  by  a  military  escort 
of  regulars  and  the  District  militia.  Cavalry  detachments 
protected  the  crossings  at  the  great  squares;  skilled  rifle 
men  were  posted  on  the  roofs  of  convenient  houses  with 
orders  to  watch  windows  opposite  from  which  a  shot 
might  be  fired.  On  Capitol  Hill  the  private  entrance  and 
exit  of  the  presidential  party  was  through  a  covered 
passageway  on  the  north  side,  lined  by  police,  with  trusted 
troops  near  by,  ....  with  a  battery  of  light  artil 
lery  on  the  brow  of  the  hill."  .  .  .  The  story  of 
the  midnight  journey  and  of  the  inauguration  make  quite 
comprehensible  what  Vice-President  Hamlin  (Hamlin's 
Life  of  Hamlin,  p.  389)  and  the  above  quoted  historians 
record  that  Lincoln  was  bitterly  ashamed  ever  afterward 
of  what  he  had  done  on  these  two  occasions. 

When  Baltimore  had  stopped  the  Massachusetts  sol 
diers,  and  Maryland  had  stopped  all  soldiers  going  to 
Washington,  Ida  Tarbell,  Nicolay  and  Hay,  Schouler  and 
Rhodes,  give  singular  accounts  of  Lincoln's  state  of  appre 
hension.  Rhodes  and  Tarbell  quote  his  words:  "Why 


The  Real  Lincoln.  19 

don't  they  come?  Why  don't  they  come?  I  begin  to 
believe  there  is  no  North.  The  Seventh  Regiment  is  a 
myth."4  Schouler  quotes  almost  the  same  words  (History 
of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  45).  Rhodes  says  he 
was  "nervously  apprehensive,"  and  sympathetic  Ida  Tar- 
bell  says  the  words  were  uttered  "in  an  anguished  tone." 
Curtis's  Life  of  Buchanan  gives  a  letter  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton 
to  the  Ex-President  describing  this  panic  in  the  city, 
which  he  says  (Vol.  II.,  p.  547)  "was  increased  by  the 
reports  of  the  trepidation  of  Lincoln."  .... 

Russell  wrote  (My  Diary,  North  and  South,  p.  43)  in 
Washington  July  22nd,  the  day  after  the  first  Union  defeat 
at  Bull  Run,  "General  Scott  is  quite  overcome ;  .  .  .  . 
General  McDowell  is  not  yet  arrived;  the  Secretary  of 
War  knows  not  what  to  do;  Mr.  Lincoln  is  equally  help 
less";  and  again  he  wrote  later  (p.  185)  that  Lincoln, 
"stunned  at  the  tremendous  calamity,  sat  listening  in 
fear  and  trembling  for  the  sound  of  the  enemy's  cannon." 

In  the  second  great  panic  in  Washington,  when  the 
Union  Army  under  General  Pope  was  utterly  routed  and 
close  on  Washington  in  retreat,  Gorham  and  Rhodes  de 
scribe  Lincoln  in  such  distress  and  perplexity  as  to  say 
to  Chase  and  Stanton,  of  his  Cabinet,  that  "he  would 
gladly  resign  his  place."  General  B.  F.  Butler  censures 
the  account  of  Lincoln's  condition  given  by  Nicolay  and 
Hay,  as  follows:  "A  careful  reading  of  that  description 
would  lead  one  to  infer  that  Lincoln  was  in  a  state  of  ab 
ject  fear."5 

Russell  says  (My  Diary,  etc.,  p.  15)  that  in  March,  1861, 

^Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  368,  and  Tarbell  in  McClure's 
Magazine  for  February,  1899,  p.  325. 

sSee  Gorham's  Life  of  Stanton,  Vol.  II.,  p.  44,  et  seq.;  Rhodes'  History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  137,  et  seq.,  and  p.  497;  and  Butler's  Book,  p.  219. 


20  The  Real  Lincoln. 

in  Washington,  there  was  "little  sympathy  with,  and  no 
respect  for,  the  newly-installed  government,"  and  that 
"the  cold  shoulder  is  given  to  Mr.  Lincoln,"  and  that 
(p.  36)  "personal  ridicule  and  contempt  for  Mr.  Lincoln 
prevail  in  Washington." 

The  Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams  describes  (p.  120, 
et  seq.)  Adam's  visit  to  the  new  President  to  get  his  in 
structions  as  Minister  to  England.  He  got  none  whatever, 
was  "half  amused,  half  mortified,  altogether  shocked," 
and  got  an  impression  of  "dismay"  at  Lincoln's  behavior 
and  his  unconsciousness  of  "the  gravity  of  the  crisis," 
or  his  insensibility  to  it,  and  perceived  that  Lincoln  was 
only  "intent  on  the  distribution  of  offices."  The  bio 
grapher,  his  son,  says  that  this  impression  had  not  faded 
from  the  mind  of  Mr.  Adams  twelve  years  later,  when  he 
made  a  Memorial  Address  on  the  death  of  Seward,  as 
indeed  plainly  appears  in  that  address,  which  describes 
Lincoln  (p.  48,  et  seq.)  as  displaying  when  he  entered  on 
his  duties  as  President,  "  moral,  intellectual,  and  executive 
incompetency."  The  biographer  goes  on  (p.  181,  et  seq.): 
"Seen  in  the  light  of  subsequent  events,  it  is  assumed 
that  Lincoln  in  1865  was  also  the  Lincoln  of  1861.  His 
torically  speaking,  there  can  be  no  greater  error.  The 
President,  who  has  since  become  a  species  of  legend,  was 
in  March,  1861,  an  absolutely  unknown,  and  by  no  means 
promising,  political  quantity";  ....  and  again, 
"none  the  less  the  fact  remains  that  when  he  first  entered 
upon  his  high  functions,  President  Lincoln  filled  with 

dismay  those  brought  in  contact  with  him 

The  evidence  is  sufficient  and  conclusive  that,  in  this 
respect,  he  impressed  others  as  he  impressed  Mr.  Adams 
in  this  one  characteristic  interview."  "Disgust"  is  the 


The  Real  Lincoln.  21 

word  used  by  Schouler  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol. 
V.,  p.  497)  to  indicate  the  impression  made  by  Lincoln 
on  "the  members  of  the  Peace  Conference"  when  they 
paid  their  respects  to  the  President  in  February,  1861. 
Rhodes  refers  to  them  scornfully  as  "polished  patricians/' 
but  it  would  be  hard  to  name  more  competent  judges  in 
the  matter  than  they  were,  as,  for  example,  Ex-President 
Tyler. 

A.  K.  McClure  says  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time, 
p.  123,  et  seq.):  "Lincoln's  desire  for  a  renomination 
was  the  one  thing  ever  apparent  in  his  mind  during  the 
third  year  of  his  Administration,"  and  he  draws  a  pitiful 
picture  (pp.  113  to  115)  of  Lincoln  as  he  saw  him  in  fits  of 
abject  depression  during  a  considerable  time  after  his 
second  nomination,  when  he  and  all  the  leaders  of  the 
Republican  party  thought  his  defeat  inevitable.  McClure 
describing  in  his  later  book,  Our  Presidents  and  How  We 
Make  Them,  p.  184,  an  interview  with  Lincoln,  says, 

"A  more  anxious  candidate  I  have  never  known 

I  could  hardly  treat  with  respect  his  anxiety  about  his 
renomination";  and  gives  other  details  betraying  contempt 
for  Lincoln's  behavior.  Fry,  too,  tells  (Reminiscences  of 
Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  590)  "of  a  craving  for  a  second  term  of 
the  presidency,"  which  he  could  not  overcome,  and  con 
fessed  he  could  not,  and  quotes  Lincoln's  words,  "No 
man  knows  what  that  gnawing  is  till  he  has  had  it." 

Rhodes6  records  contempt  for  Lincoln  expressed  by  his 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Salmon  P.  Chase,  afterwards 
made  by  Lincoln  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
says  that  Chase  "was  by  no  means  alone  in  his  judgment," 


^History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  205  to  210,  et  seq.,  and  note  on  p.  210. 


22  The  Real  Lincoln. 

and  that  "in  many  Senators  and  Representatives  existed 
a  distrust  of  his  ability  and  force  of  character";  and  he 
further  quotes  so  high  an  authority  as  Richard  H.  Dana, 
who  said  in  a  letter  to  Thornton  Lothrop,  February  23, 
1863,  when  on  a  visit  to  Washington,  "The  lack  of  respect 
for  the  President  in  all  parties  is  unconcealed";  and  wrote 
in  March,  1863,  to  Charles  Francis  Adams,  Minister  to 
England,  that  Lincoln  "  has  no  admirers,  ....  and 
does  not  act,  talk,  or  feel  like  the  ruler  of  a  great  empire 

in  a  great  crisis If  a  Republican  convention 

was  to  be  held  to-morrow  he  would  not  get  the  vote  of 

a  State He  is  an  unspeakable  calamity  to 

us  where  he  is." 

No  heroic  trait  has  of tener  been  claimed  for  Lincoln  than 
tenderness  of  heart.  General  Bonn  Piatt  (Reminiscences 
of  Lincoln,  cfec.,  p.  486  to  489)  denies  the  claim  made  for 
Lincoln  that  he  was  "of  a  kind  or  forgiving  nature,"  or 
of  any  gentle  impulses,  and  shows  (p.  493)  his  extraordi 
nary  insensibility  to  the  ills  of  his  fellow-citizens  and 
soldiers  when  the  miseries  of  the  war  were  at  their  worst. 
He  says  (p.  486),  "There  is  a  popular  belief  that  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  of  so  kind  and  forgiving  a  nature  that  his 
gentler  impulses  interfered  with  his  duty.  .  .  .  The 
belief  is  erroneous.  ...  I  doubt  whether  Mr.  Lin 
coln  had  at  all  a  kind,  forgiving  nature  ....  (p. 
487).  I  heard  Secretary  Seward  say  in  this  connection, 
that  President  Lincoln  'had  a  cunning  that  was  genius.' 
As  for  his  steady  refusal  to  sanction  the  death  penalty 
in  cases  of  desertion,  there  was  far  more  policy  in  the 

course  than  fine  feeling As  Secretary  Chase 

said  at  the  time,  'Such  kindness  to  the  criminal  is  cruelty 
to  the  army,  for  it  encourages  the  cowardly  to  leave  the 


The  Real  Lincoln.  23 

brave  and  patriotic  unsupported.'  General  Piatt  says, 
referring  to  the  leading  members  of  the  Cabinet,  Seward, 
Chase,  and  Stanton,  "While  all  these  were  eaten  into  and 
weakened  by  anxiety,  Lincoln  ate  and  slept  and  jested 
.  .  .  .  (p.  493,  et  seq.).  He  faced  and  lived  through 
the  awful  responsibility  of  the  situation  with  the  high 
courage  that  came  of  indifference.  At  the  darkest  period, 
for  us,  of  the  war,  when  the  enemy's  cannon  were  throb 
bing  in  its  roar  along  the  walls  of  our  Capitol,  I  heard 
him  say  to  General  Schenck,  'I  enjoy  my  rations  and 
sleep  the  sleep  of  the  innocent.'  ;  (P.  484.) 

A  delicate  refinement  of  feeling  is  one  of  the  traits 
often  claimed  for  Lincoln.  What  he  was  capable  of  in 
his  dealings  with  women  is  conclusively  illustrated  by 
his  letter  to  Mrs.  Browning  about  Miss  Owens.  Lamon 
copies  it,  and  so  do  Herndon  and  Hapgood;  Nicolay  and 
Hay  concede  its  authenticity  in  trying  to  make  light  of 
it;  Hapgood  copies,  besides,  another  letter,  in  which  Lin 
coln  asks  Miss  Owens  to  marry  him.  Morse  calls  the  letter 
to  Mrs.  Browning  "one  of  the  most  unfortunate  epistles 
ever  penned,"  and  elsewhere  calls  it  "  that  most  abominable 
epistle."7 

Acknowledging  that  he  had  lately  asked  Miss  Owens 
to  marry  him  and  had  been  refused  by  her,  Lincoln  writes 
to  Mrs.  Browning  that  one  of  his  reasons  for  asking  her  to 
marry  him  was  the  conviction  that  no  other  man  would  ever 
do  so.  Lamon  speaks  (page  181)  of  "its  coarse  exaggera 
tion  in  describing  a  person  whom  the  writer  was  willing 
to  marry,  its  imputation  of  toothless  and  weather-beaten 
old  age  to  a  woman  young  and  handsome." 


7Lamon's  Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  181,  et  setj.,  and  Herndon's  Abraham  Lincoln, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  55,  and  Hapgood's  Lincoln,  pp.  64  to  71,  and  Nicolay  and  Hay's  Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  192. 


24  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Evidence  of  the  marriage  of  Lincoln's  parents  has  been 
found  since  Lamon's  Lincoln  was  published  in  1872, 
and  like  evidence  of  his  mother's  legitimate  birth 
since  Hapgood's  Lincoln  was  published  in  1900.  But 
Lincoln  himself  was  capable  of  bringing  shame  upon 
the  birth  of  his  mother  to  escape  the  reproach  of  being  of 
the  unmixed  "poor  white"  blood  of  the  Hanks  family. 
Herndon's  Lincoln  (Vol.  I.,  p.  3)  says  *  "  It  was  about  1850, 
when  he  and  I  were  driving  in  his  one-horse  buggy  to  the 
court  in  Minard  county,  Illinois.  .  .  .  He  said  of  his 
mother  ....  that  she  was  the  illegitimate  daughter 
of  Lucy  Hanks  and  of  a  well-bred  Virginia  farmer  or  planter, 
and  he  argued  that  from  this  last  source  came  his  power 
of  analysis,  his  mental  activity,  his  ambition,  and  all  the 
qualities  that  distinguished  him  from  the  other  members 
of  the  Hanks  family,  ....  and  he  believed  that 
his  better  nature  and  finer  qualities  came  from  this  broad- 
minded,  unknown  Virginian." 


CHAPTER  II. 
Was  Lincoln  a  Christian? 

A  LMOST  all  the  Christians  of  Springfield,  his  home, 
-^^-  opposed  him  for  President.  He  was  an  infidel,  and 
when  he  went  to  church,  he  went  to  mock  and  came 
away  to  mimic.  He  wrote  and  talked  against  religion  in 
the  most  shocking  words.  He  never  denied  the  charge, 
publicly  urged,  that  he  was  an  infidel.  His  wife  and 
closest  friends  attest  all  this.  He  became  reticent  about 
his  religious  views  when  he  entered  political  life,  and  there 
after  indulged  freely  in  pious  phrases  in  his  published 
documents  and  passionate  expressions  of  piety  began  to 
abound  in  his  speeches;  but  he  never  denied  or  flinched 
from  his  religious  opinions  and  never  changed  them. 

As  to  Lincoln's  attitude  towards  religion,  Dr.  Holland, 
in  his  Abraham  Lincoln,  says  (p.  286)  that  twenty  out 
of  the  twenty-three  ministers  of  the  different  denomina 
tions  of  Christians,  and  a  very  large  majority  of  the  promi 
nent  members  of  the  churches  in  his  home,  Springfield, 
Illinois,  opposed  him  for  President.  He  says  (page  241): 
....  "Men  who  knew  him  throughout  all  his  profes 
sional  and  political  life"  have  said  "that,  so  far  from  being 
a  religious  man,  or  a  Christian,  the  less  said  about  that 
the  better."  He  says  of  Lincoln's  first  recorded  religious 
utterance,  used  in  closing  his  farewell  address  to  Spring 
field,  that  it  "was  regarded  by  many  as  an  evidence  both 
of  his  weakness  and  of  his  hypocrisy,  ....  and  was 
tossed  about  as  a  joke — 'old  Abe's  last.' 

Hapgood's  Lincoln  (page  291,  et  seq.)  records  that  the 
pious  words  with  which  the  Emancipation  Proclamation 

(25) 


26  The  Real  Lincoln. 

closes  were  added  at  the  suggestion  of  Secretary  Chase, 
and  so  does  Usher  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  91), 
and  so  does  Rhodes;  and  Rhodes  shows  him  "an  infidel, 
if  not  an  atheist,"  and  adds,  "When  Lincoln  entered  poli 
tical  life  he  became  reticent  upon  his  religious  opinions." 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  213,  el  seq.).  Of 
his  words  that  savor  of  religion,  Lamon  says  (Life  of 
Lincoln,  page  503) :  "  If  he  did  not  believe  in  it,  the  masses 
of  'the  plain  people'  did,  and  no  one  was  ever  more  anxious 
to  do  what  was  of  good  report  among  men."  Lamon 
further  says  (page  497)  that  after  Mr.  Lincoln  "appre 
ciated  ....  the  violence  and  extent  of  the  religious 
prejudices  which  freedom  of  discussion  from  his  stand 
point  would  be  sure  to  rouse  against  him,"  and  "the 
immense  and  augmenting  power  of  the  churches,"  .  .  .  . 
(page  502),  "he  indulged  freely  in  indefinite  expressions 
about  ' Divine  Providence/  'the  justice  of  God/  the  'favor 
of  the  Most  High/  in  his  published  documents,  but  he 
nowhere  ever  professed  the  slightest  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Son 
of  God  and  the  Saviour  of  men."  (Page  501,  et  seq.) 
"  He  never  told  any  one  that  he  accepted  Jesus  as  the  Christ, 
or  performed  one  of  the  acts  which  necessarily  followed 
upon  such  a  conviction."  ....  "  When  he  went  to  church 
at  all,  he  went  to  mock,  and  came  away  to  mimic."  (Page 
487.)  Leland  says  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  II.,  p.  55, 
et  seq.):  .  .  .  "It  is  certain  that  after  the  unpopularity  of 
free-thinkers  had  forced  itself  upon  his  mind,  the  most  fer 
vidly  passionate  expressions  of  piety  began  to  abound  in  his 
speeches."  Lamon  tells  in  detail  (Life  of  Lincoln,  p.  157, 
et  seq.)  of  the  writing  and  the  burning  of  a  "little  book," 
written  by  Lincoln  with  the  purpose  to  disprove  the  truth 
of  the  Bible  and  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  tells  how  it 


The  Real  Lincoln.  27 

was  burned  without  his  consent  by  his  friend  Hill,  lest  it 
should  ruin  his  political  career  before  a  Christian  people. 
He  says  that  Hill's  son  called  the  book  "infamous/'  and 
that  "  the  book  was  burnt,  but  he  never  denied  or  regretted 
its  composition;  on  the  contrary,  he  made  it  the  subject 
of  free  and  frequent  conversations  with  his  friends  at 
Springfield,  and  stated  with  much  particularity * and  pre 
cision  the  origin,  arguments,  and  object  of  the  work." 
Rhodes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  213)  tells 
the  same  story,  with  confirmation  in  another  place  (Vol. 
III.,  p.  368,  in  note). 

Herndon  describes  the  "essay"  or  "book"  as  "an  argu 
ment  against  Christianity,  striving  to  prove  that  the 
Bible  was  not  inspired,  and  therefore  not  God's  revelation, 
and  that  Jesus  Christ  was  not  the  Son  of  God."  Herndon 
says  that  Lincoln  intended  to  have  the  "essay"  published, 
and  further  quotes  one  of  Lincoln's  associates  of  that  day, 
who  says  that  Lincoln  "would  come  into  the  clerk's  office 
where  I  and  some  young  men  were  writing,  ....  and 
would  bring  a  Bible  with  him;  would  read  a  chapter  and 
argue  against  it."1 

A  letter  of  Herndon  (Lamon's  Lincoln,  p.  492,  et  seq.) 
says  of  Lincoln's  contest  with  the  Rev.  Peter  Cartwright 
for  Congress  in  1848  (page  404) :  "  In  that  contest  he  was 
accused  of  being  an  infidel,  if  not  an  atheist;  he  never 
denied  the  charge;  would  not;  'would  die  first,"  because 
he  knew  it  could  be  and  would  be  proved."  And  Lamon 
further  says  (page  499) :  "  The  following  extract  from  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Herndon  was  extensively  published 
throughout  the  United  State  about  the  time  of  its  date, 

^erndon's  Lincoln,  Vol.  III.,  p.  39,  et  seq.,  and  439,  et  seq.,  and  Lamon's 
Lincoln,  p.  492. 


28  The  Real  Lincoln. 

February  18,  1870,  and  met  with  no  contradiction  from 
any  responsible  source:  'When  Lincoln  was  a  candidate 
for  our  Legislature,  he  was  accused  of  being  an  infidel; 
of  having  said  that  Jesus  Christ  was  an  illegitimate  child. 
He  never  denied  the  opinions  or  flinched  from  his  reli 
gious  views.'  ' 

On  pages  487  to  514  Lamon's  Lincoln  copies  numerous 
letter  from  Lincoln's  intimate  associates,  one  from  David 
Davis,2  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  one  from  Lin 
coln's  wife,  that  fully  confirm  the  above  as  to  his  attitude 
of  hostility  to  religion.  Lamon  copies  (Life  of  Lincoln, 
p.  495)  another  letter  of  Herndon,  as  follows:  "  When  Mr. 
Lincoln  left  this  city" — Springfield,  Illinois — "for  Wash 
ington,  I  know  that  he  had  undergone  no  change  in  his 
religious  opinions  or  views."  And  Lamon  gives  (page 
480)  a  letter  of  Nicolay,  his  senior  private  secretary 
throughout  his  Administration,  which  states  that  he  per 
ceived  no  change  in  Lincoln's  attitude  toward  religion 
after  his  entrance  on  the  presidency.  The  Cosmopolitan, 
of  March,  1901,  says  that  Nicolay  "probably  was  closer 
to  the  martyred  President  than  any  other  man;  .... 
that  he  knew  Lincoln  as  President  and  as  man  more  inti 
mately  than  any  other  man."  .... 

2The  Appendix  shows  that  he  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Lincoln. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Lincoln's  Jokes  and  Stories. 

T3HODES  is  everywhere  jealous  to  defend  Lincoln, 
-•-  *>  but  he  thinks  fit  to  record  the  following  (History  of 
the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  471,  note  and  p.  518), 
prefacing  it  with  the  statement  that  the  World  was  then 
the  organ  of  the  best  element  of  the  Democratic  party; 
that  the  New  York  World,  of  June  19,  1864,  called  Lincoln 
"an  ignorant,  boorish,  third-rate,  backwoods  lawyer," 
and  reported  that  the  spokesman  of  a  delegation  sent  to 
carry  the  resolutions  of  a  great  religious  organization  to 
the  President  publicly  denounced  him  as  "  disgracefully  un 
fit  for  the  high  office  " ;  and  that  a  Republican  Senator  from 
New  York  was  reported  to  have  left  the  President's  pres 
ence  because  his  self-respect  would  not  permit  him  to  stay 
and  listen  to  the  language  he  employed.  Rhodes  further 
sets  down  "a  tradition"  that  Andrew,  the  great  War 
Governor  of  Massachusetts,  when  pressing  a  matter  he 
had  at  heart,  went  away  in  disgust  at  being  put  off  by  the 
President  with  "a  smutty  story." 

Dr.  Holland's  Abraham  Lincoln  says  of  the  indecency 
of  his  jokes  and  stories:  "It  is  useless  for  Mr.  Lincoln's 
biographers  to  ignore  this  habit;  the  whole  West,  if  not 
the  whole  country  (he  is  writing  in  1866),  is  full  of  these 
stories,  and  there  is  no  doubt  at  all  that  he  indulged  in 
them  with  the  same  freedom  that  he  did  in  those  of  a  less 
objectionable  character."  Again  he  says  (page  251): 
.  .  .  .  "Men  who  knew  him  thoughout  all  his  profes- 

(29) 


30  The  Real  Lincoln. 

sional  and  political  life  ....  have  said  that  he  was  the 
foulest  in  his  jests  and  stories  of  any  man  in  the  country." 

This  is  a  comprehensive  indictment  from  one  of  Lin 
coln's  most  loving  worshippers,  as  is  shown  at  Holland's 
name  in  the  Appendix,  and  is  fully  sustained  by  testi 
mony  submitted  below  from  Morse,  Hapgood,  Piatt, 
Rhodes,  and — most  shocking  testimony  of  all — from 
Lamon  and  Herndon. 

Norman  Hapgood,  a  very  late  biographer  of  Lincoln 
(of  the  year  1900)  and  Morse,  the  next  latest  (of  the  year 
1892),  confirm  the  "  revelations "  and  the  "  ghastly  ex 
posures"  about  Lincoln  that  are  described  below  as  re 
corded  by  Lamon  and  by  Herndon.  Morse  says  that  a 
necessity  and  duty  rested  on  those  biographers  to  record 
these  truths,  as  they  both  claim  was  their  duty,  and  Hap 
good  says,  "Herndon  has  told  the  President's  early  life 
with  refreshing  honesty  and  with  more  information  than 
any  one  else."1 

General  Don  Piatt  records  (Memories  of  the  Men  Who 
Saved  the  Union,  p.  35)  an  occasion  when  he  heard  Lin 
coln  tell  stories  "no  one  of  which  will  bear  printing." 
Lamon  adds  to  all  this  his  testimony  (Abraham  Lincoln,  pp. 
480  and  430)  that  this  habit  of  Lincoln's  "was  restrained 
by  no  presence  and  no  occasion,"  and  General  Piatt  refers 
to  him  as  "the  man  who  could  open  a  Cabinet  meeting 
called  to  discuss  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  by  read 
ing  aloud  Artemus  Ward,"  and  refers  to  Gettysburg  as 
"the  field  that  he  shamed  with  a  ribald  song,"  making 
reference  to  a  song  that  Lincoln  asked  for  and  got  sung 
on  the  Gettysburg  battlefield  the  day  he  made  his  cele- 

VHapgood's  Abraham  Lincoln,  Preface,  p.  8;  Morse's  Lincoln,  Vol.. I.,  p.   13 
and  p.  192,  et  seq. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  31 

brated  address  there.  This  behavior  has  been  much 
discussed  by  his  eulogists,  and  defended  as  a  relief  neces 
sary  for  a  nature  so  sensitive  and  high- wrought."2  "Was 
ever  so  sublime  a  thing  ushered  in  by  the  ridiculous?" 
say  Rhodes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  167). 
The  mood  in  which  Lincoln  issued  the  Proclamation  is 
hereinafter  described  as  set  forth  by  his  eulogists. 

Herndon  gives  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  55,  et  seq.) 
a  copy  of  a  satire  written  by  Lincoln,  The  first  Chronicle 
of  Reuben,  and  an  account  of  the  very  slight  provocation 
under  which  Lincoln  wrote  it,  and  in  two  foot  notes  de 
scribes  the  exceedingly  base  and  indecent  device  by  which 
Lincoln  brought  about  the  events  which  gave  opportunity 
for  this  satire;  and  Herndon  copies  some  verses  written 
and  circulated  by  Lincoln  which  he  considers  even  more 
vile  than  the  "Chronicle."  Of  these  verses  Lamon  says, 
"It  is  impossible  to  transcribe  them."  (Life  of  Lincoln, 
pages  63  and  64.)  Decency  does  not  permit  the  publi 
cation  of  the  Chronicle  or  the  verses  here. 

In  neither  of  A.  K.  McClure's  books,  Lincoln  and  Men 
of  the  War  Time,  published  in  1892,  or  Our  Presidents  and 
How  We  Make  Them,  published  in  1900,  does  he  offer 
any  contradiction  of  the  "revelations"  and  "ghastly  dis 
closures"  that  Lamon  and  Herndon  had  published  to  the 
world  so  long  before,  but  McClure  does  say  in  the  earlier 
of  the  books,  in  the  preface  (p.  2),  "The  closest  men  to 
Lincoln,  before  and  after  his  election  to  the  presidency, 
were  David  Davis,  Leonard  Swett,  Ward  H.  Lamon,  and 
William  H.  Herndon."  Letters  of  the  first  two  named 
are  among  the  letters  referred  to  above,  published  by 
Lamon  as  evidence  of  Lincoln's  attitude  toward  religion. 


^Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  481,  et  seq.,  and  p.  485,  et  seq. 


32  The  Real  Lincoln. 

If  any  would  take  refuge  in  the  hope  that  the  responsi 
bilities  of  his  high  office  raised  Lincoln  above  these  habits 
of  indecency,  they  are  met  by  authentic  stories  of  his 
grossly  unseemly  behavior  as  President  by  the  evidence 
of  Lamon,  the  chosen  associate  of  his  life  time,  as  given 
above,  that  his  indulgence  in  gross  jokes  and  stories  was 
"restrained  by  no  presence  and  no  occasion." 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Estimates  of  Lincoln. 

THE  evidence  thus  far  submitted  concerns  chiefly  the 
personal  character  of  Lincoln.  Let  us  proceed  to  con 
sider  evidence  to  show  that  his  conduct  of  public 
affairs  provoked  the  bitterest  censure  from  a  very  great 
number  of  the  most  conspicuous  of  his  colaborers  in  his 
achievements. 

A.  K.  McClure  says  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time, 
p.  51)  of  Lincoln,  "If  he  could  only  have  commanded  the 
hearty  cooperation  of  the  leaders  of  his  own  party,  his 
task  would  have  been  greatly  lessened,  but  it  is  due  to 
the  truth  of  history  to  say  that  few,  very  few,  of  the 
Republicans  of  national  fame  had  faith  in  Lincoln's  ability 
for  the  trust  assigned  to  him.  I  could  name  a  dozen  men, 
now1  idols  of  the  nation,  whose  open  distrust  of  Lincoln 
not  only  seriously  embarrassed,  but  grievously  pained 
and  humiliated  him." 

Ben  Perley  Poore  shows  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c., 
p.  348)  Henry  Ward  Beecher's  censures  of  Lincoln,  and 
so  do  Beecher's  editorials  in  the  Independent  of  1862,  of 
which  Beecher  says  himself  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c., 
p.  249)  ..."  they  bore  down  on  him  very  hard." 
Beecher's  contemptuous  censures  are  recorded  by  Rhodes, 
too  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  462);  and 
he  shows,  besides,  that  Senator  Wilson,  of  Massachusetts, 
was  among  the  great  body  of  leading  Republicans  who, 
as  will  be  shown,  bitterly  opposed  Lincoln's  renomination 

^cClure's  title  page  is  dated  1892. 

(33) 
3 


34  The  Real  Lincoln. 

for  President  in  1864.  He  says,  too,  of  Wilson  that  his 
open  assaults  were  amazing  ;  .  .  .  that  he  was  loud 
and  bitter  even  in  the  President's  house. 

Hapgood  quotes  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  164)  Wendell 
Phillips  about  Lincoln:  "Who  is  this  huxter  in  politics? 
Who  is  this  county  court  lawyer?"  Morse,  too,  gives 
(Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  177)  severe  censures  of  Lincoln  by 
Wendell  Phillips.  A.  K.  McClure  (Lincoln  and  Men  of 
the  War  Time,  p.  117,  and  p.  259  and  p.  54,  et  seq.,  and  p. 
104)  records  bitter  censure  of  him  by  Thaddeus  Stevens, 
and  shows  the  hostility  to  Lincoln  of  Sumner,  Trumbull, 
Ben  Wade,  and  Chandler,  and  of  his  Vice-President,  Ham- 
lin.  Ida  Tarbell2  calls  Senator  Sumner,  Ben  Wade,  Henry 
Winter  Davis,  and  Secretary  Chase  "malicious  foes  of 
Lincoln,"  and  makes  the  remarkable  and  comprehensive 
concession  that  "about  all  the  most  prominent  leaders 
.  .  .  were  actively  opposed  to  Lincoln,"  and  mentions 
Greeley  as  their  chief. 

Fremont,  who  eight  years  before  had  received  every 
Republican  vote  for  President,  charged  Lincoln  (Holland's 
Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  259,  p.  469,  and  p.  471)  with  "inca 
pacity  and  selfishness,"  with  "disregard  of  personal 
rights,"  with  "violation  of  personal  liberty  and  liberty  of 
the  press,"  with  "feebleness  and  want  of  principle":  and 
says:  "The  ordinary  rights  under  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  country  have  been  violated,"  and  he  further 
accuses  Lincoln  of  "managing  the  war  for  personal  ends." 

Dr.  Holland  shows  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  469,  et  seq.) 
that  Fremont,  Wendell  Phillips,  Fred  Douglass,  and  Greeley 
were  leaders  in  a  very  nearly  successful  effort  to  defeat 

2McClure's  Magazine,  Vol.  XIII.,  for  July,  1899,  p.  277,  and  for  July,  1899, 
p.  218,  et  seq. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  35 

Lincoln's  second  nomination,  and  quotes  as  follows,  action 
of  the  convention  for  that  purpose  held  in  Cleveland, 
May  21st,  1864,  that  "the  public  liberty  was  in  danger"; 
that  its  object  was  to  arouse  the  people,  "  and  bring  them 
to  realize  that,  while  we  are  saturating  Southern  soil  with 
the  best  blood  of  the  country  in  the  name  of  liberty,  we 
have  really  parted  with  it  at  home." 

Colonel  Roosevelt,  now  President,  in  a  speech  at  Grand 
Rapids,  September  8th,  1900,  said  that  in  1864  "on  every 
hand  Lincoln  was  denounced  as  a  tyrant,  a  shedder  of 
blood,  a  foe  to  liberty,  a  would-be  dictator,  a  founder  of 
an  empire — one  orator  saying,  'We  also  have  our  emperor, 
Lincoln,  who  can  tell  stale  jokes  while  the  land  is  running 
red  with  the  blood  of  brothers.'  Even  after  Lincoln's 
death  the  assault  was  kept  up." 

A.  K.  McClure  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p. 
54),  recording  the  hostile  attitude  toward  Lincoln  of  the 
leading  members  of  the  Cabinet,  makes  a  concession  as 
comprehensive  as  Miss  Tarbeli's  above:  "Outside  of  the 
Cabinet  the  leaders  were  equally  discordant  and  quite  as 
distrustful  of  the  ability  of  Lincoln  to  fill  his  great  office. 
Sumner,  Trumbull,  Chandler,  Wade,  Winter  Davis,  and 
the  men  to  whom  the  nation  then  turned  as  the  great 
representative  men  of  the  new  political  power,  did  not  con 
ceal  their  distrust  of  Lincoln,  and  he  had  little  support 
from  them  at  any  time  during  his  Administration";  and 
McClure  says  again  (p.  289,  et  seq.):  "Greeley  was  a 
perpetual  thorn  in  Lincoln's  side  ....  and  almost 
constantly  criticised  him  boldly  and  often  bitterly.  .  .  . 
Greeley  labored  (p.  296)  most  faithfully  to  accomplish 
Lincoln's  overthrow  in  his  great  struggle  for  re-election 


36  The  Real  Lincoln. 

in  1864."  (Morse's  Lincoln,  Vol.  II.,  p.  193).  And 
Edward  Everett  Hale  shows  (James  Russell  Lowell  and 
his  Friends,  p.  178,  et  seq.)  that  even  the  circumstances 
of  Lincoln's  death  did  not  for  a  day  abate  Greeley's  repro 
bation. 

The  careful  reader  will  not  fail  to  observe  that  Lincoln's 
first  term  of  four  years  was  at  this  time  nearly  over,  so  that 
all  this  bitter  censure  from  his  associates  was  based  on 
full  knowledge  of  him. 

Very  few  other  persons,  if  any,  were  so  competent  to  esti 
mate  Lincoln's  character  as  the  three  great  leaders  in  his 
Cabinet,  Seward,  Stanton,  and  Chase,  whose  testimony  we 
are  now  to  examine;  certainly  no  others  had  so  good  an 
opportunity  to  form  an  estimate. 

Secretary  Seward's  estimate  of  Lincoln  is  furnished  by 
Ida  Tarbell,3  as  follows:  "A  less  obvious  perplexity  than 
the  office-seekers  for  Mr.  Lincoln,"  when  he  entered  on  his 
duties,  "  though  not  a  less  real  one,  was  the  attitude  of  his 
Secretary  of  State — his  (Seward's)  cheerful  assumption 
that  he,  not  Mr.  Lincoln,  was  the  final  authority  of  the 
Administration;  ...  he  believed  (p.  267),  as  many 
Republicans  did,  that  Lincoln  was  unfit  for  the  presidency, 
and  that  some  one  of  his  associates  would  be  obliged  to 
assume  leadership,  ...  a  sort  of  dictatorship;  that 
if  he,  Seward,  were  absent  eight  days  ....  the  Ad 
ministration  .  .  .  would  fall  into  consternation  and 
despair."  And  Ida  Tarbell  quotes  from  Seward's  letters 
to  his  wife  at  the  time  full  proof  of  this. 

Seward  has  been  much  criticised  and  accused  of  rare 
presumption  for  a  letter  that  he  wrote  to  the  President, 
as  Secretary  of  State,  one  month  after  his  first  inaugura- 

3McClure's  Magazine  for  March,  1899,  p.  448,  et  seq. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  37 

tion,  because  the  letter  manifested  a  sense  of  superiority, 
arid  condescendingly  offered  his  advice  and  aid  and  leader 
ship.  It  is  possible  that  Seward  did  feel  some  of  the  con 
tempt  for  Lincoln  that  his  brethren  in  the  Cabinet,  Chase 
and  Stanton,  never  ceased  to  express  freely  for  Lincoln 
throughout  their  long  terms  of  office  and  very  frequently 
showed  to  his  face,  as  is  shown  below.  Like  them,  Gov 
ernor  Seward  was  a  man  of  the  highest  social  standing, 
and  of  large  experience  in  the  highest  public  functions. 
The  Lincoln  whom  so  many  now  call  a  hero  and  a  saint 
is  exceedingly  different  from  the  Lincoln  that  the  people 
who  came  in  contact  with  him  knew  up  to  the  time  of 
his  death,  as  is  frankly  avowed  in  this  sketch  by  Adams 
and  Piatt,  and  reluctantly  conceded  by  Crittenden  and 
Rhodes.  What  he  was  capable  of  in  personal  habits, 
manners,  and  morals  has  been  shown  in  the  account  of 
the  "First  Chronicle  of  Reuben/'  and  his  submission  to 
humiliations  such  as  are  described  below,  and  elsewhere 
in  this  book,  from  such  men  as  Seward,  Stanton,  Chase, 
and  General  McClellan,  is  not  at  all  unaccountable. 

Few  were  more  ardent  Abolitionists  than  Seward,  as 
shown  in  Bancroft's  late  life  of  him,  but  he  was  no  tyro  in 
statecraft,  and  knew  the  exceedingly  small  number  of  voters 
in  the  United  States  who  would  hear  patiently  of  abolition.4 
The  policy  Seward  so  authoritatively  suggested  was— 
to  use  the  very  words  of  his  letter5 — "  to  change  the  ques 
tion  before  the  public  from  one  upon  Slavery  for  a  question 
upon  Union  or  Disunion."  Lincoln  at  once  adopted  that 

4General  Butler  says  in  Butler's  Book,  p.  293,  that  as  late  as  July,  1861,  no  one 
in  power  was  in  favor  of  emancipation. 

5William  Elery  Curtis  says  in  his  True  Lincoln,  p.  204,  an  ardent  eulogy,  pub 
lished  in  1903,  that  this  letter  of  Seward's  did  not  come  to  light  till  "nearly  thirty 
years  after." 


38  The  Real  Lincoln. 

policy,  as  shown  in  Chapter  VIII.  of  this  book,  arid  by 
means  of  it  precipitated  the  war."  Its  astuteness  in  dis 
tracting  men's  minds  from  the  matter  of  slavery  has  been 
much  commended,  arid  Seward  might  well  say,  as  he  did,0 
that  Lincoln  "had  a  cunning  that  was  genius." 

How  successfully  the  issue  was  changed  is  proved  in  a 
quotation  from  Lowell  by  Scudder  (Atlantic  Monthly  for 
February,  1861),  as  follows:  "Slavery  is  no  longer  the 
matter  in  debate,  arid  we  must  beware  of  being  led  off 
on  that  issue.  The  matter  now  in  hand  is  .... 
the  reaffirmation  of  National  Unity."  Yet  Lowell  was 
an  ardent  Abolitionist,  and  not  an  admirer  of  Lincoln, 
as  will  be  shown  at  p.  208  of  this  book,  until  long  after  this; 
not,  indeed,  until  Lincoln's  Apotheosis  began,  the  Com 
memoration  Ode  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

A.  K.  McClure  says  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time, 
p.  151,  et  seq.) :  "  Secretary  Stanton  had  been  in  open  and 
malignant  opposition  to  the  Administration  only  a  few 
months  before."  (This  was  in  January,  1862.)  "Stanton 
often  spoke  of  and  to  public  men,  military  and  civil,  with 
a  withering  sneer.  I  have  heard  him  scores  of  times  thus 
speak  of  Lincoln  and  several  times  thus  speak  to 
Lincoln."  .  .  .  "After  Stanton's  retirement  from 
the  Buchanan  Cabinet,  when  Lincoln  was  inaugurated, 
he  maintained  the  closest  confidential  relations  with 
Buchanan,  and  wrote  him  many  letters  expressing 
the  utmost  contempt  for  Lincoln.  .  .  .  These  letters, 
.  .  .  given  to  the  public  in  Curtis's  Life  of  Buchanan, 
speak  freely  of  the  painful  imbecility  of  Lincoln,  the 
venality  and  corruption  which  ran  riot  in  the  Govern 
ment";  and  McClure  goes  on:  "It  is  an  open  secret  that 

^Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  Allen  Thorndike  Rice,  N.  Y.,  1886,  p.  487. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  39 

Stanton  advised  the  revolutionary  overthrow  of  the  Lin 
coln  government,  to  be  replaced  by  General  McClellan 
as  Military  Dictator.  .  .  .  These  letters,  published 
by  Curtis,  bad  as  they  are,  are  not  the  worst  letters  written 
by  Stanton  to  Buchanan.  Some  of  them  are  so  violent 
in  their  expression  against  Lincoln  ....  that  they 
have  been  charitably  withheld  from  the  public." 

Hapgood  refers  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  164)  to  Stanton's 
"brutal  absence  of  decent  personal  feeling"  towards  Lin 
coln,  and  tells  (p.  254)  of  Stanton's  insulting  behavior 
when  they  met  five  years  earlier,  of  which  meeting  Stanton 
said  that  he  "  had  met  him  at  the  bar  and  found  him  a  low, 
cunning  clown."  See  also  Ben  Perley  Poore  in  Remi 
niscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  223.  Morse  says  (Lincoln, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  327)  that  Stanton  "carried  his  revilings  of  the 
President  to  the  point  of  coarse  personal  insults,"  and 
refers  (p.  326)  to  his  "habitual  insults."  Yet  to  a  man  of 
President  Buchanan's  character  arid  standing  Stanton 
showed  an  excess  of  deference;  for  Mr.  Buchanan  com 
plained  in  a  letter  to  his  niece,  Miss  Harriet  Lane  (Curtis's 
Life  of  Buchanan,  Vol.  II.,  p.  533),  that  Stanton,  when 
in  his  Cabinet,  "  was  always  on  my  side  and  flattered  me 
ad  nauseam." 

Schouler  says  of  Stanton  (History  of  the  United  States, 
Vol.  VI.,  p.  159),  "He  denounced  Lincoln  in  confidential 
speeches  and  letters  as  a  coward  and  a  fool." 

Of  Secretary  Chase,  A.  K.  McClure  says  (Lincoln  and 
Men  of  the  War  Time,  p.  8),  "Chase  was  the  most  irritating 
fly  in  the  Lincoln  ointment."  Ida  Tarbell  says  (McClure' s 
Magazine  for  January,  1899),  "But  Mr.  Chase  was  never 
able  to  realize  Mr.  Lincoln's  greatness."  Nicolay  and 


40  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Hay  say  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  389,  Vol.  VI.,  p. 
264)  of  Chase,  "Even  to  complete  strangers  he  could  not 
write  without  speaking  slightingly  about  the  President. 
He  kept  up  this  habit  to  the  end  of  Lincoln's  life."  .  .  . 
"But  his  attitude  towards  the  President,  it  is  hardly  too 
much  to  say,  was  one  which  varied  between  the  limits  of 
active  hostility  and  benevolent  contempt."  Yet  none 
rate  Chase  higher  than  Nicolay  a"nd  Hay  do  for  character, 
talent,  and  patriotism.  Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United 
States,  Vol.  IV.,  pp.  205  arid  210)  that  Chase's  "opinion  of 
Lincoln's  parts  was  not  high,"  and  that  he  "dealt  unre 
strained  censure  of  the  President's  conduct  of  the  war." 


CHAPTER  V. 

Did  Lincoln  Ever  Intend  that  the  Masters 
be  Paid  for  Their  Slaves? 

/"CONSPICUOUS  among  the  baseless  claims  made  for 
^-^  Lincoln  is  the  allegation  that  he  proposed  and  really 
had  the  purpose  to  compensate  the  masters  for  eman 
cipation  of  their  negroes.  Rhodes  sets  forth  the  plan 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  631),  and 
there  and  elsewhere  labors  to  vindicate  the  claim,  but  he 
shows  by  a  letter  of  Lincoln's  (p.  632)  that  Lincoln  did 
not  himself  expect  that  it  could  take  any  effect  anywhere 
but  in  Delaware,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  and  the  District 
of  Columbia.  And  Rhodes  acknowledges  that  it  did  take 
effect  nowhere  but  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  there 
with  compensation  to  "loyal"  masters  only.  He  further 
explains  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  218)  that  the  slaveholders  of  the 
Border  States  were  saved  from  any  temptation  to  accept 
what  was  offered  by  "the  belief  that  it  was  impossible 
for  the  North  to  conquer  the  South."1  Rhodes  goes  on  to 
say  that  the  alternative  was  "separation  of  the  sections 
with  strong  guarantees  for  slavery  in  the  Border  States 
which  remained  with  the  North;  that  the  remark  which 
it  is  said  Lincoln  made  to  Crittenden,  '  You  Southern  men 
will  soon  reach  the  point  where  bonds  will  be  a  more  valu 
able  possession  than  bondsmen/  was  far  from  a  self-evident 
proposition  in  February,  1863;  in  truth,  the  reverse  was 

irThat  Lincoln's  belief  then  was  the  same  is  shown  abundantly  elsewhere  in 
this  book,  and  that  fact  bears  strongly  on  his  claim  for  credit. 

(41) 


42  The  Real  Lincoln. 

the  estimate  of  the  Democrats."  And  Rhodes  says  fur 
ther  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  68),  that  "one  other  objection  must  have 

weighed  with  them It  was  a  part  of  the  plan 

that  payment  for  the  slaves  should  be  made  in  United 
States  bonds;  and  while  negro  property  had  become  noto 
riously  precarious,  the  question  must  have  suggested 
itself  whether,  in  view  of  the  enormous  expenditures 
of  the  Government,  the  recent  military  reverses,  and  the 
present  strength  of  the  Confederacy,  the  nation's  promises 
to  pay  were  any  more  valuable."  And  Rhodes  goes  on 
still:  "The  whole  conquered  part,  at  least,  could  be 
counted  on  to  resist  a  payment  from  which  themselves 
were  excluded — any  computation  of  the  amount  to  which 
their  slaves  added  would  bring  the  compensation  will 
show  that  no  one  could  ever  dream  of  including  them." 
Rhodes  quotes  from  McPherson's  Political  History  the 
answers,  to  the  above  effect,  given  by  "a  majority  of  the 
Representatives  in  Congress  of  Kentucky,  Virginia,  Mis 
souri,  and  Maryland,"  who  gave  as  an  additional  reason 
that  they  "  did  not  think  the  war  for  the  Union  could  possi 
bly  hold  out  another  year,  or  that  the  offer  would  be  carried 
out  in  good  faith;  ....  that  they  doubted  the 
sincerity  of  Congress2  in  making  the  offer."  Referring  to 
what  he  calls  "current  expressions"  of  opinion  in  England, 
Rhodes  says  (p.  79,  et  seq.) :  "  Lincoln's  plan  of  compen 
sated  emancipation  was  pronounced  chimerical,  and  its 
purpose  insincere,"  and  that  it  was  "issued  for  the  purpose 
of  affecting  European  opinion."  Rhodes's  desire  to  vin 
dicate  his  hero's  claim  betrays  him  into  inconsistencies. 
Ida  Tarbell,  with  even  greater  zeal,  calls  Lincoln's  plan 


2And  Rhodes  concedes  that  he  does,  too. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  43 

for  emancipating  the  slaves  "simple,  just,  and  impracti 
cable,"  and  says3  "nothing  ever  came  of  it."  .  .  . 

Henry  J.  Raymond  says,4  "The  bill  was  referred  to  a 
committee,  but  no  action  was  taken  upon  it  in  Congress, 
nor  did  any  of  the  Border  States  respond  to  the  President's 
invitation."  And  Rhodes  gives  a  similar  account  of  it. 

Boutwell  says,5  "It  is  not  probable  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
entertained  the  opinion  'that  these  measures,  one  or  all, 
would  secure  the  abolition  of  slavery.' ' 

Gorham  shows  (Life  of  Edwin  M.  Stanton,  p.  185)  his 
impression  of  Lincoln's  purpose,  as  follows :  "  The  result 
of  this  so-called  Border-State  policy  seems  to  have  been 
meagre  in  the  way  of  proselyting  slaveholders  to  the 
Union  cause." 

A.  K.  McClure  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p. 
223)  and  Nicolay  and  Hay  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  X.,  p. 
132)  tell  of  Lincoln's  offering  to  his  Cabinet  a  written 
plan  for  emancipation  with  compensation  to  the  amount 
of  $400,000,000,  which  plan  was  unanimously  disapproved 
by  the  Cabinet.  Like  the  paper  elsewhere  described  in 
this  book,  which  expressed  Lincoln's  purposes  in  view  of 
the  almost  certainly  expected  election  of  McClellan  to 
the  presidency,  this  plan  for  emancipation  was  sealed  up 
by  Lincoln  and  committed  to  the  care  of  one  of  the  Cabinet 
members,  and  this  would  seem  the  only  purpose  with  which 
it  could  have  been  prepared.  Rhodes  quotes  (History 
of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  407  and  p.  409)  an  account 
of  the  matter  in  Lincoln's  own  words,  published  in  a  letter 
which  Rhodes  says  "may  be  called  a  stump  speech,"  as 

3McClure's  Magazine,  Vol.  XII.,  April,   1899,  p.  525. 
*Life  and  Public  Services  of  President  Lincoln,  p.  239. 
^Abraham  Lincoln  Tributes  from  His  Associates,  p.  86. 


44  The  Real  Lincoln. 

follows:  "I  suggested  compensation,  to  which  you  an 
swered  that  you  wished  not  to  be  taxed  to  buy  negroes." 
It  will  be  seen  that  after  Lincoln's  failure  thus  to  secure 
the  support  of  the  Border  States,  he  fell  into  despair,  until 
new  measures  were  devised  to  enlarge  his  powers  and 
force  on  the  people  his  re-election. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
Opposition  to  Abolition  Before  the  War. 

BEFORE  treating  the  subject  indicated  by  the  head 
ing  of  this  chapter,  it  is  convenient  to  state  here 
precisely  a  widespread,  erroneous  belief  which  this  book 
undertakes  to  correct. 

The  impression  upon  the  minds  of  thousands  of  people 
about  the  War  Between  the  States  may  be  formulated 
as  follows:  That  at  the  firing  upon  Fort  Sumter,  the  peo 
ple  of  the  Northern  States  rose  with  one  mind,  and  for 
the  four  years  of  the  war  ungrudgingly  poured  forth  their 
treasure  and  shed  their  blood  to  re-establish  the  Union 
and  to  free  the  slaves.  Let  us  consider  how  much  foun 
dation  there  is  for  this  popular  impression. 

In  order  to  show  the  enormous  difficulties  overcome 
by  their  hero,  Lincoln,  in  accomplishing  his  two  notable 
achievements,  his  eulogists  have  furnished  much  evi 
dence  that  shows  that  both  the  coercion  of  the  South 
and  the  emancipation  of  the  negroes  were  accomplished 
against  the  will  of  the  Democratic  party  arid  of  no  small 
part  of  the  Republican  party  in  the  North  and  West, 
and  their  evidence  to  that  effect  will  now  be  submitted. 

As  there  had  been  agitation  of  abolition  long  before 
any  one  ever  suggested  seriously  the  possibility  of  coer 
cion  in  case  States  should  secede,  as  was  not  seldom 
threatened,  not  in  the  South  only,  but  by  New  Eng- 

45) 


46  The  Real  Lincoln. 

land,  earlier  and  quite  as  earnestly,  it  is  best  to  consider 
first  how  far  the  North  and  West  approved  of  abolition. 

Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  records  the  fact1  that  aboli 
tion  was  opposed  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
Northern  people  and  the  Western  people,  not  only  down 
to  the  war,  but  during  the  whole  of  it,  and  as  long  as 
opposition  to  it  was  at  all  safe.  Bitter  as  his  reprobation 
of  this  public  sentiment  is,  he  frankly  concedes  it,  and 
says  that  between  1830  and  1840  "there  was  hardly  a 
place  of  any  size  where  any  one  could  advocate  emanci 
pation,  and  that  in  1841  there  were  but  two  pronounced 
anti-slavery  men  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  The 
Rev.  Edward  Everett  Hale  says,2  "As  lately  as  when  I 
left  college,  in  1839,  my  classmate,  the  Rev.  William 
Francis  Channing,  was,  I  think,  the  only  man  in  our  class 
who  would  have  permitted  himself  to  be  called  an  Aboli 
tionist.  I  should  not,  I  am  sure." 

The  Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams,  by  his  son  of  the 
same  name,  records  (p.  29)  that  Garrison  was  mobbed 
in  Boston  in  1835  for  being  an  Abolitionist.  See,  also, 
page  33  and  page  58.  Page  105  and  thereafter  shows 
how  ill-esteemed  and  shabby  the  Republican  party  in 
Washington  was  as  late  as  1859.  In  Edward  Everett 
Hale's  lately  published  book,  "James  Russell  Lowell,  etc." 
he  names  (page  22,  et  seq.)  a  classmate  who  was,  he  thinks, 
the  only  Abolitionist  in  Harvard  College  in  1838,  and 
says  (p.  21),  "Boston  as  Boston  hated  Abolitionism" 
as  the  stevedores  and  longshoremen  ....  hated 

Andrew's  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  II.,  p.  15.  It  describes  besides 
the  destruction  of  charitable  schools  for  negroes  and  even  of  their  homes,  by  peo 
ple  regarded  as  the  most  respectable  classes  of  society  in  Connecticut  and  else 
where  in  New  England  and  the  prohibition  by  law  of  schools  for  negro  children. 

^Memories  of  a  Hundred  Years,  in  the  Outlook  for  August  2,  1902,  p.  872. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  47 

"a  nigger";  that  Dr.  Palfrey,  once  of  the  Divinity  Faculty 
of  Harvard,  "like  most  men  with  whom  he  lived,  had 
opposed  the  Abolitionists  with  all  his  might,  his  voice, 
and  his  pen";  and  he  adds  that  "the  conflict  at  the  outset 
was  not  a  crusade  against  slavery."  James  Russell 
Lowell  said  (Scudder's  Life  of  Lowell,  Vol.  1,  p.  187)  that 
"when  Garrison  showed  strength  in  his  agitation  against 
slavery  ....  a  prolonged  shriek  of  execration  and 
horror  quavered  from  the  Aroostook  to  the  Red  river." 
The  prominent  place  now  given  in  Longfellow's  works  to 
his  Abolition  poems  does  not  prepare  us  to  hear  from  Scud- 
der  (Life  of  Lowell,  Vol.  I.,  p.  183)  that  the  well-known 
Philadelphia  publishers  Gary  &  Hart  brought  out  a  hand 
somely  illustrated  volume  of  Longfellow's  works  from 
which  this  group  of  poems  was  omitted,"  and  on  the  same 
page  is  a  letter  of  Lowell's  in  which  he  refers  to  "Long 
fellow's  suppression  of  his  anti-slavery  pieces."3 

Schouler  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI., 
p.  216),  "Scarcely  had  an  American  bard  struck  his  lyre 
to  another  chord  of  patriotism  save  the  courageous  Whit- 
tier";  ...  and  again  (p.  337,  et  seq.),  "Hawthorne 
died,  despondent  of  his  country,  in  1864.  Of  our  galaxy 
of  great  poets  Whittier  alone  could  forge  fitly  in  such  a 
lurid  flame." 

The  Rev.  Henry  Ward  Beecher  said  in  an  address  to 
the  people  of  Manchester,  England,4  that  in  the  North 
1  'Abolitionists  were  rejected  by  society,  .  .  .  blighted 
in  political  life";  that  to  be  called  an  Abolitionist  caused 
a  merchant  to  be  avoided  as  if  he  had  the  plague;  that  the 

3For  Lowell's  own  attitude,  see  page  208  of  this  book. 

4See  a  collection   of  his  speeches  in  the  Pratt   Library,   Baltimore,  marked 
53866-2557. 


48  The  Real  Lincoln. 

"doors  of  confidence  were  closed  upon  him"  in  the  church. 
Dr.  Holland  says  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  67)  that  in  1830 
the  prevailing  sentiment  of  Illinois  was  "in  favor  of 
slavery' ' ;  .  .  "  the  Abolitionist  was  despised  by  both 
parties."  And  George  William  Curtis  reproaches  his  own 
people  (Orations  and  Addresses,  Vol.  I.,  p.  146)  as  follows: 
"We  betrayed  our  own  principles,  and  those  who  would 
not  betray  them  we  reviled  as  fanatics  and  traitors;  we 
made  the  name  of  Abolitionist  more  odious  than  any  in 
our  annals  (Vol.  I.,  p.  28).  If  a  man  .  .  .  died 
for  liberty,  as  Lovejoy  did  at  Alton,  he  was  called  a  fana 
tical  fool."  Of  the  same  death  the  editor  of  the  book 
says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  131),  "And  the  country  scowled,  and 
muttered,  'Served  him  right.'"5  Curtis  goes  on,  "The 
Fugitive-Slave  Law  was  vigorously  enforced  in  Ohio  and 
other  States."  He  quotes  (Vol.  I.,  p.  75,  et  seq.)  a  decla 
ration  of  Edward  Everett  as  Governor  of  Massachusetts 
that  "discussion  that  leads  to  insurrection  is  an  offence 
against  the  Commonwealth,"  and  quotes  Daniel  Webster 
that  "it  is  an  affair  of  high  morals  to  aid  in  enforcing  the 
Fugitive-Slave  Law."  He  quotes  (Vol.  I.,  p.  88)  a  speech 
in  1859  of  Stephen  A.  Douglas  that  fully  justified  slavery, 
and  he  quotes  him  as  saying  (p.  51),  "If  you  go  over  into 
Virginia  to  steal  her  negroes,  she  will  catch  you  and  put 
you  in  jail,  with  other  thieves."  In  the  same  spirit  of 
scornful  denunciation  as  the  above,  Curtis  sets  forth  (Vol. 
L,  pp.  80  to  82)  the  purpose  the  North  entertained  not 
to  interfere  with  slavery.  "In  other  free  States  men 

6Lovejoy  was  killed  by  a  mob  for  incendiary  agitation  for  Abolition — not  in 
the  South,  but  in  Alton,  Illinois,  in  1836.  Edwin  Earle  Sparks,  in  his  Man  Who 
Made  the  Nation,  quotes,  at  page  36,  the  Attorney-General  of  Massachusetts  as 
saying  to  the  public  meeting  that  assembled  in  Faneuil  Hall  on  the  occasion  of  Love- 
joy's  death,  "He  died  as  the  fool  dieth." 


The  Real  Lincoln.  49 

were  flying  for  their  lives;  were  mobbed,  seized,  impris 
oned,  maimed,  murdered."  .  .  .  And  all  this  was 
as  late  as  1850.  "The  Southern  policy  (Vol.  I.,  p.  130, 
et  s.eq.)  seemed  to  conquer.  The  church,  the  college, 
trade,  fashion,  the  vast  political  parties,  took  Calhoun's 

side In  Boston,  in  Philadelphia,  in  New  York, 

in  Utica,  in  New  Haven,  and  in  a  hundred  villages,  when 
an  American  citizen  proposed  to  say  what  he  thought 
on  a  great  public  question  ....  he  was  insulted, 
mobbed,  chased,  and  maltreated.  The  Governor  of  Ohio 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  131)  actually  delivered  a  citizen  of  that  State 
to  the  demand  of  Kentucky  to  be  tried  for  helping  a  slave 
to  escape."  He  gives  (Vol.  I.,  p.  132)  Seward's  picture 
of  the  entire  unanimity  of  the  Washington  Government 
both  at  home  and  abroad  in  supporting  the  Southern  side, 
and  says  (p.  139),  "Fernando  Wood  and  the  New  York 
Herald  were  the  true  spokesmen  of  the  confused  public 
sentiment  of  the  city  of  New  York,  when  one  proposed 
the  secession  of  the  city  and  the  other  proposed  the  adop 
tion  of  the  Montgomery  Constitution" — that  is,  the  Consti 
tution  of  the  Confederate  States,  which  was  adopted  at 
Montgomery,  Alabama.  Arid  Curtis  goes  on :  "  If  the  city 
of  New  York  in  February,  1861,  had  voted  upon  its  accept 
ance,  it  would  have  been  adopted."  Referring  to  the 
enlistment  of  negroes  for  soldiers,  Curtis  says  (p.  174), 
"  But  I  remember  that  four  years  ago  there  were  good  men 
among  us  who  said,  'If  white  hands  can't  win  this  fight, 
let  it  be  lost.'"  Does  not  Curtis  here  concede  that  "white 
hands"  did  not  win  the  fight?  Whether  he  does  or  not, 
did  not  Lincoln,  in  justification  of  the  Emancipation 
4 


50  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Proclamation,  say6  that  "white  hands"  could  not  or  would 
not  win  the  fight,  and  did  not  Lincoln  frequently  say  after 
wards,  in  defence  of  his  autocratic  action,  that  but  for  his 
emancipating  and  arming  the  negroes  the  fight  would  not 
have  been  won?  And — finally — did  the  "white  hands" 
of  the  great  North  and  West  lack  numbers  or  wealth  or 
courage  to  win  the  fight,  with  such  odds  in  their  favor, 
if  it  had  been  their  will?" 

It  is  not  uncommon  to  hear  bitter  reprobation  of  the 
Fugitive-Slave  Laws  and  of  the  South  for  daring  to  ask 
the  North  and  West  to  execute  them.  As  late  as  the  year 
1902  Harper's  Weekly  said,7  "Some  laws  appeal  to  the 
human  conscience  for  violation,  such  as  the  Fugitive-Slave 
Law,  .  .  .  wrhich  was  merely  legislated  atrocity." 
The  Fugitive-Slave  Laws  required  citizens  of  States  to 
which  slaves  escaped  to  arrest  the  fugitive  by  the  hands  of 
their  town  and  county  police  officers  and  surrender  him 
to  his  master.  It  was  dirty  work  which  gentlemen  in  the 
South  did  with  great  reluctance,  if  at  all,  for  their  neigh 
bors.  Joel  Chandler  Harris  pictures  faithfully,  in  his 
Aaron  in  the  Woods,  the  sympathy,  and  aid  and  comfort 
too,  that  the  runaway  had  and  the  reprobation  of  the 
master  who  did  not  keep  his  negroes  happy  and  content 
at  home.  Better  proof  can  hardly  be  imagined  to  show 
how  far  the  North  and  West  were  from  favoring  emanci 
pation  than  the  following  facts  about  the  Fugitive-Slave 
Laws. 


6Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  69,  gives  Lincoln's  state 
ment  of  the  state  of  the  case,  from  the  diary  of  Secretary  Welles,  given  in  a 
drive  with  Seward  and  Welles,  Sunday,  July  13,  1862,  as  recorded  by  Nicolay  and 
Hay,  that  the  President  "had  about  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  a  military 
necessity,  absolutely  essential  for  the  salvation  of  the  nation,  that  we  must  free 
the  slaves  or  be  ourselves  subdued." 

7Editorial  of  March  8th,  p.  293. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  51 

As  to  the  attitude  of  the  people,  Dr.  E.  Benjamin  An 
drews,  who  is  still  an  ardent  admirer  of  the  Abolitionists, 
concedes,  as  a  hitter  reproach  to  the  North  and  West 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  240),  that  the 
Fugitive-Slave  Laws  were  passed  by  a  Congress  that  had 
a  decided  majority  of  Northern  men.  George  William 
Curtis  says  (Orations  and  Addresses,  Vol.  I.,  p.  29),  "The 
Fugitive-Slave  Bill  was  passed.  .  .  .  The  North 
seemed  to  be  eager  for  shame.  The  Free  States  hurried 
to  kiss  the  foot  of  the  monstrous  power  that  claimed  the 
most  servile  allegiance."  .  .  .  The  Fugitive-Slave 
Law  was  vigorously  enforced  in  other  States.  The  Life 
of  William  Lloyd  Garrison  quotes,  in  a  note  on  page  60, 
from  a  letter  from  Washington  in  the  New  York  Herald 
of  May  16,  1862,  as  follows:  "The  Fugitive-Slave  Law  is 
being  quietly  enforced  in  this  district  to-day,  the  military 
authorities  not  interfering  with  the  judicial  process.  There 
are  at  least  four  hundred  cases  pending."  Observe  that 
this  was  nine  months  after  the  first  battle  of  Manassas, 
or  Bull  Run. 

As  to  Lincoln's  own  attitude  towards  the  Fugitive-Slave 
Laws,  we  have  the  following  testimony  from  the  following 
witnesses:  Dr.  Holland  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  347)  and 
Markland  tell  us  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  317) 
that  Lincoln  repeatedly  pledged  himself  to  the  execution 
of  them;  that  he  promised  a  prominent  Kentucky  Demo 
crat  that  "  the  Fugitive-Slave  Law  will  be  better  admin 
istered  under  my  Administration  than  it  has  ever  been 
under  that  of  my  predecessors";  that  "he  voluntarily  and 
frequently  declared  that  he  considered  the  slaveholders 
entitled  to  a  fugitive-slave  law."  Ida  Tarbell  quotes  from 


52  The  Real  Lincoln. 

a  letter  of  Lincoln's  (McClure's  Magazine  for  December, 
1898,  p.  162),  "You  know  I  think  that  the  Fugitive-Slave 
clause  of  the  Constitution  ought  to  be  -enforced — to  put 
it  in  the  mildest  form,  ought  not  to  be  resisted/'  She 
gives,  too,  in  another  copy  of  the  same  Magazine,  a  letter 
of  Lincoln's  to  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  late  Vice-Presiderit  of 
the  Confederate  States,  referring  to  fears  entertained  by 
the  South  that  he  might  interfere  directly  or  indirectly 
with  the  slaves,  and  assures  Stephens  "that  there  is  no 
cause  for  such  fears.  The  South  would  be  in  no  more 
danger  in  this  respect  than  in  the  days  of  Washington." 
Even  Nicolay  and  Hay  concede  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol. 
TIL,  p.  253  and  p.  258)  that  he  "backed  the  Fugitive-Slave 
Laws  fully,  in  writing."  His  Inaugural  gave  a  fresh  promise 
that  he  would  execute  them. 

As  to  Lincoln's  views  about  abolition,  we  have  his  own 
full  and  distinct  avowal,  made  in  his  speech  in  reply  to 
Douglas  at  Peoria,  Illinois,  October  16,  1854 :8 

"Before  proceeding  let  me  say  that  I  think  I  have  no 
prejudice  against  the  Southern  people.  They  are  just 
what  we  would  be  in  their  situation.  If  slavery  did  not 
now  exist  among  them,  they  would  not  introduce  it.  If 
it  did  exist  among  us,  we  should  not  instantly  give  it  up. 
This  I  believe  of  the  masses,  North  and  South.  Doubtless 
there  are  individuals  on  both  sides  who  would  not  hold 
slaves  under  any  circumstances,  and  others  who  would 
gladly  introduce  slavery  anew  if  it  were  not  in  existence. 
We  know  that  some  Southern  men  do  free  their  slaves, 

8Abraham   Lincoln's  complete  works,   edited   by  Messrs.   Nicolay   and   Hay, 
Vol.  I.,  p.   186. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  53 

go  North,  and  become  tip-top  Abolitionists,  while  some 
Northern  ones  go  South  and  become  most  cruel  slave- 
masters. 

"When  Southern  people  tell  us  they  are  no  more  re 
sponsible  for  the  origin  of  slavery  than  we  are,  I  acknowl 
edge  the  fact.  When  it  is  said  that  the  institution  exists, 
and  it  is  very  difficult  to  get  rid  of  it  in  any  satisfactory 
way,  I  can  understand  and  appreciate  the  saying.  I 
surely  will  not  blame  them  for  not  doing  what  I  should 
not  know  how  to  do  myself.  If  all  earthly  power  were 
given  me,  I  should  not  know  what  to  do  as  to  the  existing 
institution.  My  first  impulse  would  be  to  free  all  the 
slaves,  and  send  them  to  Liberia,  to  their  own  native  land. 
But  a  moment's  reflection  would  convince  me  that  what 
ever  of  high  hope — as  I  think  there  is — there  may  be  in 
this  in  the  long  run,  its  sudden  execution  is  impossible. 
If  they  were  all  landed  there  in  a  day,  they  would  all  perish 
in  the  next  ten  days;  and  there  are  not  surplus  shipping 
and  surplus  money  enough  to  carry  them  there  in  many 
times  ten  days.  What  then?  Free  them  all,  and  keep 
them  among  us  as  underlings?  Is  it  quite  certain  this 
betters  their  condition?  I  think  I  would  not  hold  one  of 
them  in  slavery  at  any  rate,  yet  the  point  is  not  clear 
enough  for  me  to  denounce  people  upon.  What  next? 
Free  them,  and  make  them  politically  and  socially  our 
equals?  My  own  feelings  will  not  admit  of  this,  and  if 
mine  would,  we  well  know  that  those  of  the  great  mass 
of  whites  will  not.  Whether  this  feeling  accords  with 
justice  and  sound  judgment  is  not  the  sole  question,  if 
indeed  it  is  any  part  of  it.  A  universal  feeling,  whether 
well  or  ill  founded,  cannot  be  safely  disregarded.  We  can 
not  make  them  equals.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  systems 


54  The  Real  Lincoln. 

of  gradual  emancipation  might  be  adopted,  but  for  their 
tardiness  in  this  I  will  not  undertake  to  judge  our  brethren 
of  the  South. 

"When  they  remind  us  of  their  constitutional  rights, 
I  acknowledge  them— not  grudgingly,  but  fully  and  fairly; 
and  I  would  give  them  any  legislation  for  the  reclaiming 
of  their  fugitives  which  should  not  in  its  stringency  be 
more  likely  to  carry  a  free  man  into  slavery  than  our 
ordinary  criminal  laws  are  to  hang  an  innocent  one." 

David  R.  Locke  says  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c., 
p.  445)  that  in  Lincoln's  contest  with  Douglas  for  Congress 
in  1858,  the  imputation  of  abolition  was  what  "it  was 
Lincoln's  chief  desire  to  avoid,"  as  appears  in  the  follow 
ing  words,  which  show,  too,  the  attitude  of  that  district 
in  Illinois  towards  abolition:  "The  Republican  leaders, 
and  Lincoln  as  well,  were  afraid  of  only  one  thing,  and 
that  was  having  imputed  to  them  any  desire  to  abolish 
slavery.  Douglas,  in  all  the  debates  between  himself  and 
Lincoln,  attempted  to  fasten  abolition  on  him,  and  this  it 
was  Lincoln's  chief  desire  to  avoid.  Great  as  he  was,  he 
had  not  then  reached  the  point  of  declaring  war  upon 
slavery;  he  could  go  no  further  than  to  protest  against  its 
extension  into  the  Territories,  and  that  was  pressed  in  so 
mild  and  hesitating  a  way  as  to  rob  it  of  half  its  point." 

Leland  (his  Lincoln,  p.  50,  et  seq.)  quotes  from  Lamon 
and  from  Holland  to  show  that  Lincoln's  anti-slavery 
protests  before  the  war  were  very  mild,  and  confirms  their 
statements  about  it. 

The  Nation  of  October  7,  1899,  quotes  from  James  R. 
Gilmore's  Personal  Recollections  of  Abraham  Lincoln  and 
the  Civil  War  what  Lincoln  said  to  Gilmore  in  May,  1863. 
The  Southern  people  "  think  they  have  a  moral  and  legal 


The  Real  Lincoln.  55 

right  to  their  slaves,  and  until  very  recently  the  North  has 
been  of  the  same  opinion."  The  same  book,  at  page  57, 
says  that  Gilmore  said  to  Lincoln,  in  November,  1861, 
"You  told  me  eight  months  ago  that  after  thirty  years 
of  agitation  the  Abolitionists  were  merely  a  corporal's 
guard,  not  a  party."  All  of  which  shows  that  it  would 
have  been  what  is  now  called  "bad  politics"  for  Lincoln 
to  avow  abolition  sentiments,  though  it  is  but  justice  to 
say  that  further  evidence  tends  to  show  that  he  never 
entertained  any  such  sentiments,  although  they  have  been 
attributed  to  him  almost  universally,  like  heroism,  re 
finement,  and  personal  piety,  his  claims  to  which  virtues 
have  been  hereinbefore  discussed.  Rhodes  gives,9  without 
comment,  a  letter  from  the  New  York  Tribune's  corre 
spondent  to  the  managing  editor,  Sydney  Howard  Gray, 
giving  details  of  a  talk  with  General  Wadsworth,  who  had 
been  with  the  President  and  Stanton  every  day  at  the 
War  Department — frequently  for  five  or  six  hours — du 
ring  several  months.  He  says,  "The  President  is  not  with 
us;  has  no  anti-slavery  instincts."  This  is  in  1862  that 
he  speaks  of  anti-slavery  men  as  "Radicals,  Abolitionists," 
and  frequently  speaks  of  "the  nigger  question." 

A  memorial  addressed  to  the  President  by  the  Meeting 
of  the  Christian  Men  of  Chicago,  held  September  7,  1862,10 
shows  their  impression  about  Lincoln's  attitude  to  emanci 
pation  by  quoting  from  the  Bible  Mordecai's  threat  to 
Queen  Esther,  "If  thou  altogether  holdest  thy  peace  at 
this  time,  ....  thou  and  thy  father's  house  shall 
be  destroyed." 

Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  says:11  "Mr.  Lincoln  and  the 

^History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  64,  note. 

10See  Fund  Publication  of  the  Maryland  Historical  Society,  p.  14. 

"History  of  the   United  States,  Vol.   II.,  p.   190. 


56  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Republican  party  resorted  to  arms  not  intending  the 
slightest  alteration  in  the  constitutional  status  of  slavery.7' 
Allen  Thorndike  Rice  says12  Lincoln  did  not  free  the 
negro  for  the  sake  of  the  slave,  but  for  the  sake  of  the 
Union.  It  is  an  error  to  class  him  with  the  noble  band  of 
Abolitionists  to  whom  neither  Church  nor  State 
sacred  when  it  sheltered  slavery.'' 

^Introduction  to  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  14. 


CHAPTEE  VII. 

Secession  Long  Threatened— Coercion  Never 
Seriously  Thought  of  Till  1861. 

THE  authorities  we  quote  have  put  on  record  ample 
proof  of  a  widespread  conviction  in  the  North  and 
West  in  1861  that  the  use  of  force  to  retain  States 
in  the  Union  was  not  only  inadmissible  under  the  Consti 
tution,  but  abhorrent  to  the  principles  on  which  their 
political  institutions  rested. 

Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams  asked,  in  a  late  address 
to  the  New  England  Society  of  Charleston,  South  Caro 
lina,  referring  to  secession,  "What  at  different  epochs 
would  have  been  the  probable  outcome  of  any  attempt 
at  withdrawal?  ....  I  hold  that  it  was  merely  a 
question  of  time,  and  that  such  a  withdrawal  as  then  took 
place  would  never  have  failed  of  success  at  any  anterior 
period  in  our  national  history."  The  same  very  high 
authority  says1  that  "up  to  the  very  day  of  the  firing 
on  the  flag  the  attitude  of  the  Northern  States,  even 
in  case  of  hostilities,  was  open  to  grave  question,  while 
that  of  the  Border  States  did  not  admit  of  a  doubt"; 

.  .  .  .  "  that  Mr.  Seward,  the  member  of  the  Presi 
dent's  Cabinet  in  charge  of  foreign  affairs,  both  in  his 
official  papers  and  his  private  talk,  repudiated  not  only 
the  right,  but  the  wish  even  to  use  armed  force  in  subju 
gating  the  Southern  States  against  the  will  of  a  majority 
of  the  people,  and  declared  that  the  President  willingly 

1Life  of  Charles  Francis  Adams,  his  father,  Lincoln's  Minister  to  England, 
p.  49,  et  seq. 

(57) 


58  The  Real  Lincoln. 

accepted  as  true  the  cardinal  dogma  of  the  seceding  States, 
that  the  Federal  Government  had  no  authority  for  coer 
cion;2  .  .  .  and  all  this  time  (p.  150)  the  Southern 
sympathizers  throughout  the  'loyal'  States  were  earnest 
and  outspoken." 

General  B.  F.  Butler  records  (Butler's  Book,  p.  298) 
that  Henry  Dunning,  Mayor  of  Hartford,  called  the  City 
Council  together  "to  consult  if  my  troops  should  be  al 
lowed  to  go  through  Hartford  on  the  way  to  the  war. 
He  was  a  true,  loyal  man,  but  did  not  believe  in  having  a 
war He  was  a  patriot  to  the  core." 

Morse  makes  the  following  remarkable  statement:3 
"Greeley  and  Seward  and  Wendell  Phillips,  representa 
tive  men,  were  little  better  than  Secessionists.  The  state 
ment  sounds  ridiculous,  yet  the  proof  against  each  comes 
from  his  own  mouth.  The  Tribune  had  retracted  none 
of  those  disunion  sentiments  of  which  examples  have  been 
given."  A.  K.  McClure  shows  that  Greeley  was  not 
alone  in  these  views.  He  says  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the 
War  Time,  p.  292,  et  seq.),  "Not  only  the  Democratic 
party,  with  few  exceptions,  but  a  very  large  proportion 
of  the  Republican  party,  including  some  of  its  ablest  and 
most  trusted  leaders,  believed  that  peaceable  secession 
might  reasonably  result  in  early  reconstruction." 

Would  Jefferson  Davis,  would  Robert  Lee,  have  asked 
more  than  McClure  here  says  the  two  great  parties  of  the 
North  and  West  agreed  in  believing  ought  to  be  done? 

Even  so  late  as  April  10,  1861,  Seward  wrote  official!}^ 

2We  have  a  letter  of  July,  1861,  from  Seward  to  Minister  Adams,  in  Rhodes' 
History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  304,  of  like  dispassionate  tone.  It  blames 
alike  "the  extreme  advocates  of  African  slavery  and  its  most  vehement  oppo 
nents,"  as  seeming  "to  act  together  to  precipitate  a  servile  war." 

^Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  231.  He  quotes  from  Greeley 's  editorials  repeated  bitter 
censures  of  forcing  seceded  States  back  into  the  Union. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  59 

to  Charles  Francis  Adams,  Minister  to  England,  "  Only  an 
imperial  and  despotic  government  could  subjugate  thor 
oughly  disaffected  and  insurrectionary  members  of  the 
State."  On  April  9th  the  rumor  of  a  fight  at  Sumter  being 
spread  abroad,  Wendell  Phillips  said,  "Here  are  a  series 
of  States  girding  the  Gulf  who  think  that  their  peculiar 
institutions  require  that  they  should  have  a  separate 
government;  they  have  a  right  to  decide  that  question 
without  appealing  to  you  and  to  me.  .  .  .  Standing 
with  the  principles  of  '76  behind  us,  who  can  deny  them 
the  right?  ....  Abraham  Lincoln  has  no  right  to 
a  soldier  in  Fort  Sumter.  .  .  .  You  cannot  go 
through  Massachusetts  and  recruit  men  to  bombard 
Charleston  and  New  Orleans."  Morse  is  comprehensive 
in  his  statement  (Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  233)  of  the  position 
taken  by  the  Republicans,  saying  of  Lincoln's  early  days 
in  Washington,  ....  "None  of  the  distinguished 
men,  leaders  of  his  own  party  whom  Lincoln  found  about 
him  at  Washington,  were  in  a  frame  of  mind  to  assist  him 
efficiently."  Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  deplores  (History 
of  the  United  States,  Vol.  II.,  p.  95)  the  fact  that  "coolness 
and  absurd  prejudice  against  coercing  largely  possessed 
even  the  loyal  masses,"  and  that  (Vol.  II.,  p.  95)  "  through 
out  the  North  the  feeling  was  strong  against  all  efforts 
at  coercion."  A.  K.  McClure  says,4  "Even  in  Philadel 
phia  ....  nearly  the  whole  commercial  and  finan 
cial  interests  were  arrayed  against  Lincoln  at  first." 

For  months  after  the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  while 
the  other  States  were  successively  passing  ordinances  of 
secession  and  seizing  the  forts,  arsenals,  &c.,  within  their 

4Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them,  p.  177.     See  also  Morse's  Lincoln, 
Vol.   I.,  p.   4,  and  p.   22. 


60  The  Real  Lincoln. 

boundaries,  the  Government  at  Washington,  President, 
Cabinet,  Supreme  Court,  and  Congress,  took  not  one  step 
toward  coercion,  nor  did  either  house  of  Congress  listen 
to  a  suggestion  of  emancipation.  These  Senators  and 
Representatives  were  almost  all  from  the  North  and  the 
West,  and  we  may  surely  conclude  that,  at  so  critical  a 
period,  they  ascertained  and  carried  out  the  will  of  their  con 
stituents.  See  the  testimony  of  General  B.  F.  Butler  (But 
ler's  Book,  Boston,  1892,  p.  1009)  as  to  how  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  stood.  He  says  that  "  during 
the  whole  war  of  the  rebellion  the  Government  was  rarely 
ever  aided,  but  usually  impeded,  by  the  decisions  of  the 
Supreme  Court,  so  that  the  President  was  obliged  to 
suspend  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  in  order  to  relieve  him 
self  from  the  rulings  of  the  court."  This  is  stated  by 
General  Butler  quite  seriously,  and  not,  as  might  possibly 
be  supposed,  in  any  satirical  mood.  Of  the  Supreme 
Court's  Dred  Scott  decision,  Woodrow  Wilson  says 
(Division  and  Reunion,  p.  198),  "The  opinion  of  the  court 
sustained  the  whole  Southern  claim." 

Ropes  says  (Story  of  the  Civil  War,  Part  ],  p.  19),  "It 
is  true  that  during  the  winter  of  1860  Congress  took  no 
action  whatever  looking  toward  preparation  for  the  con 
quest  of  the  outgoing  States."  ....  From  page 
355  to  553  of  the  first  volume  of  Greeley's  American  Con 
flict  there  is  little  but  a  record  of  the  opposition  to  coer 
cion  of  the  South  in  the  "loyal"  States.  Pages  357  et  seq. 
and  354  et  seq.  show  the  action  of  the  Legislatures  of  New 
Jersey  and  Illinois,  both  nearly  unanimous,  in  the  same 
direction.  See,  also  (Vol.  I.,  p.  380,  et  seq.),  the  very  strong 
support  given  to  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution  pro 
posed  by  one  whom  Greeley  called  "the  venerable  and 


The  Real  Lincoln.  61 

Union-loving  Crittenden,  of  Kentucky,"  which  amend 
ment  guaranteed  ample  protection  to  slavery,  and  it  could 
have  been  passed  in  Congress,  but  for  the  fact  that  they 
knew  the  South  thought  the  time  for  compromise  was 
past. 

Greeley  describes  (American  Conflict,  p.  387,  et  seq.)  a 
tremendous  demonstration  against  the  threatened  war 
made  in  New  York  State  in  February,  1861,  in  which  her 
leaders  promised  about  all  the  South  could  ask.  In  this, 
as  in  the  New  York  State  Democratic  Convention,  which 
he  describes  (p.  392)  as  "  probably  the  strongest  and  most 
imposing  assembly  of  delegates  ever  convened  in  the 
State,"  Greeley  records  expressions  of  the  purpose  not 
only  not  to  coerce,  but  to  aid  the  South  in  case  of  war, 
which  expressions  were  heard  with  applause;  and  in  a 
speech  of  James  S.  Thayer,  it  was  alleged  that  these  views 
had  been  asserted  in  the  last  election  by  333,000  votes 
in  New  York.  Greeley  further  makes  the  following  very 
remarkable  statement:  "That  throughout  the  Free  States 
eminent  and  eager  advocates  of  adhesion  to  the  new  Con 
federacy  by  those  States  were  widely  heard  and  heeded." 
Vice-President  Hamlin  said  (Life  of  Hannibal  Plamlin,  by 
his  son,  p.  459),  "If  we  had  had  a  common  union  in  the 
North  and  a  common  loyalty  to  the  government,  we  could 
have  ended  this  civil  war  months  ago,  but  this  aid  and 
comfort  the  rebels  had  received  from  the  Northern 
allies."  .  .  . 

Morse  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  76)  copies  from 
a  speech  made  by  Lincoln  in  Congress,  January  12th, 
1848,  "Any  people  anywhere,  being  inclined  and  having 
the  power,  have  the  right  to  rise  up  and  shake  off  the  exist 
ing  government,  and  form  a  new  one  that  suits  them  better. 


62  The  Real  Lincoln. 

This  is  a  most  valuable,  a  most  sacred  right — a  right 
which  we  hope  and  believe  is  to  liberate  the  world.  Nor 
is  this  right  confined  to  cases  in  which  the  whole  people  of 
an  existing  government  may  choose  to  exercise  it.  Any 
portion  of  such  people,  that  can,  may  revolutionize,  and 
make  their  own  of  so  much  of  the  territory  as  they  inhabit." 
On  this  Morse  comments  as  follows:  "This  doctrine, 
so  comfortably  applied  to  Texas  in  1848,  seemed  unsuitable 
to  the  Confederate  States  in  1861." 

Woodrow  Wilson  (Division  and  Reunion,  p.  165)  says 
some  of  the  Northern  Whigs  had  not  hesitated  to  join 
John  Quincy  Adams,  early  in  1843,  in  declaring  to  their 
constituents  that  in  their  opinion  the  annexation  of  Texas 
would  bring  about  and  fully  justify  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union;  while  later,  in  1845,  Wm.  Lloyd  Garrison  had 
won  hearty  bursts  of  applause  from  an  anti-annexation 
convention  held  in  Boston  by  the  proposal  that  Massachu 
setts  should  lead  in  a  movement  to  withdraw  from  the 
Union." 

And  Woodrow  Wilson  sets  forth  the  mind  of  the  Govern 
ment  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  in  1860  as  fol 
lows  (Division  and  Reunion,  p.  214) :  That  President  Bu 
chanan  .  .  .  "  agreed  with  his  Attorney-General  that 
there  was  no  constitutional  means  or  warrant  for  coercing 
a  State  to  do  her  duty  under  the  law.  Such,  indeed,  for 
the  time  seemed  to  be  the  general  opinion  of  the  country." 

Colonel  Roosevelt,  now  President,  said  in  his  Oliver 
Cromwell,  p.  193:  "Of  course  if  the  Constitution" — of 
1789 — "had  made  such  a  declaration" — of  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  all  the  States — "it  would  never  have  been 
adopted,  while  if  the  Republican  platform  of  1860  had 
taken  such  a  position,  Lincoln  would  not  have  been 


The  Real  Lincoln.  63 

elected,  no  war  for  the  Union  would  have  been  waged." 
And  Edward  Everett  Hale  says,5  "The  reader  of  to-day 
forgets  that  in  the  same  years  in  which  South  Carolina 
was  defying  the  North,  Massachusetts  gave  directions  that 
the  national  flag  should  not  float  over  her  State-House." 
It  is  interesting  to  observe  what  the  Rev.  Mr.  Hale  thinks 
South  Carolina  was  defying. 

Schouler  (History  of  the  United  States,  p.  214,  et  seq.) 
records  that  General  B.  F.  Butler  offered  his  Massachusetts 
brigade  to  put  down  any  negro  insurrection,  and  that 
"few,  North  or  South,  during  the  first  year  of  the  war, 
sought  or  approved  emancipation."  General  B.  F.  Butler 
says  (Butler's  Book,  Boston,  1892,  p.  293),  "  If  we  had  beaten 
at  Bull  Run,  I  have  no  doubt  the  whole  contest  would 
have  been  patched  up  by  concessions  to  slavery,  as  no  one 
in  power  then  was  ready  for  its  abolition."  Lincoln  him 
self  said  in  his  famous  letter  to  Greeley  in  the  Tribune 
"If  I  could  save  the  Union  without  freeing  any  slave  I 
would  do  it." 

General  B.  F.  Butler  says  (Butler's  Book,  p.  168,  et  seq.), 
"  Mr.  Lincoln's  Inaugural  Address,  under  advice  of  Seward, 
left  it  wholly  uncertain  whether  he  would  attempt  to  re 
take  Forts  Pickens  and  Moultrie. 

Bancroft  (Life  of  Seward,  Vol.  I.,  p.  93)  describes  Lin 
coln's  first  message  as  meaning  either  war  or  peace,  arid 
says,  "  It  is  now  plain  that  no  definite  course  of  action  had 
been  determined";  and  (p.  104)  "Seward's  method  of 
dealing  with  secession  was  remarkably  like  Buchanan's." 

Nicolay  and  Hay  record  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  III., 
p.  247,  et  seq.)  that  Lincoln  called  using  force  "the  ugly 
point." 

5James  Russell  Lowell  and  his  Friends,  p.  105,  et  seq. 


64  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Ropes  says  (Story  of  the  Civil  War,  Part  IT.,  p.  70,  et 
seq.)  of  the  policy  urged  by  Governor  Pickens,  but  not 
adopted  by  the  Confederate  Government  at  Montgomer}'— 
to  seize  Sumter  before  Buchanan's  term  should  end — "  It 
is  very  improbable  that  Mr.  Buchanan  would  have  thought 
himself  authorized  to  call  the  North  to  arms  if  Sumter 
had  been  attacked  while  he  was  President,  and  it  is  almost 
certain  that  Mr.  Lincoln  would  never  have  taken  the  risk 
involved  in  beginning  an  aggressive  war  against  the  South 
in  retaliation  for  any  past  act,  no  matter  how  flagrant." 

What  impression  as  to  his  intentions  Lincoln  meant 
to  produce  is  plain  from  the  following:  Greeley  quotes 
(American  Conflict,  Vol.  L,  p.  422)  assurances  given  by 
Lincoln  in  his  Inaugural  Address  that  he  would  not  "  inter 
fere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  where  it  exists  in  the 
States."  Ida  Tarbell  quotes  the  same,6  and  both  say 
the  assurances  were  so  strong  that  they  should  have  re 
moved  the  apprehensions  of  the  South.  Burgess  sums 
up  the  light  on  history  given  by  that  Inaugural  as 
follows:7  "This  language  was  certainly  a  little  con 
fusing  to  the  minds  of  Union  men,  and  by  so  much  encour 
aging  to  the  Secessionists.  .  .  .  Mr.  Lincoln  should 
never  have  used  the  word  invasion  to  describe  the  presence 
of  the  National  Government  in  any  State  of  the  LTnion, 
or  the  entrance,  so  to  speak,  of  the  National  Government 
into  any  State  of  the  Union.  .  .  .  The  idea  rests 
upon  the  most  radical  misconception  of  the  distinction 
between  international  and  constitutional  law.  .  .  .  Mr. 
Lincoln  also  made  a  mistake  in  announcing  that  he  would 
not,  for  the  time  being,  fill  the  United  States  offices,  and 

KMcClure's  Magazine   for  January,    1899,   p.   261. 

7 The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution, Vol.  I.,  p.  141,  very  recentlylpublished. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  65 

cause  the  execution  of  the  United  States  laws,  in  the 
interior  of  hostile  communities.  This  encouraged  still  fur 
ther  the  hope  and  belief  among  the  masses  of  the  Southern 
States  that  peaceable  disunion  was  even  probable.  .  .  . 
Taken  altogether  the  address  shows  that  even  Mr.  Lin 
coln's  mind  was  not  altogether  clear  as  to  the  national 
character  of  our  political  system,  but  it  also  shows  that  it 
was  clearer  than  that  of  any  of  his  contemporaries.  The 
whole  country,  North  and  South,  was  more  or  less  tainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  States'  Rights.  The  difference  between 
all  the  public  men  of  that  day  was  a  difference  of  degree 
more  than  of  kind.  It  is  wonderful  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
should  have  been,  in  the  midst  of  such  surroundings,  so 
clear  as  he  was." 

Is  it  not  shown  above  that  Lincoln's  use  of  military 
force  was  contrary  to  views  which  he  had  deliberately 
formulated  twelve  years  earlier — contrary  to  the  right 
that  John  Quincy  Adams  and  William  Lloyd  Garrison 
had  claimed  for  New  England  in  Boston  with  applause 
sixteen  years  earlier — contrary  to  the  mind  of  the  Govern 
ment  and  people  of  the  United  States  on  the  day  when  he 
called  for  75,000  soldiers?  Is  it  not  shown,  besides,  that 
he  betrayed  or  professed  in  his  Inaugural  such  hesitation 
as  encouraged  secession,  and  that  this  hesitation  was  in 
the  mind  of  all  the  public  men  of  that  day  who  were  not 
decided  in  denial  of  all  right  to  use  force? 

Burgess  says  (The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  p. 
174),  "The  Governors  of  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  Ken 
tucky,  Tennessee,  Missouri,  and  Arkansas  flatly  and 
insolently  refused  to  obey  the  President's  call  for 
troops  from  those  Commonwealths,  and  the  Governors 
5 


66  The  Real  Lincoln. 

of  Maryland  and  Delaware  did  not  obey  it.  No 
ordinance  of  secession  had  yet  been  passed  by  any  of  these 
Commonwealths,  and  no  one  of  them  claimed  to  be  out 
of  the  Union.  .  .  .  These  men  made  themselves, 
by  their  military  insubordination,  subject  to  a  United 
States  court-martial.  They  ought  to  have  been  arrested, 
tried,  and  condemned  by  a  military  tribunal  for  one  of 
the  most  grievous  offenses  known  to  public  jurisprudence. 
It  was  the  physical  power  to  carry  out  such  a  procedure 
that  was  lacking.  ...  At  this  day  such  an  atti 
tude  on  the  part  of  State  Governors  would  be  regarded 
very  differently  from  what  it  was  then,  and  might  be  dealt 
with  very  differently."  But,  he  says,  on  p.  198  of  same 
Vol.,  "It  is  doubtful  if  Mr.  Lincoln  himself  and  his  chief 
advisers  realized  the  enormity  of  the  offense  which  these 
'Border-State'  Governors  had  committed  in  refusing  to 
send  forward  the  troops." 

See  below  testimony  from  very  numerous  and  distin 
guished  witnesses  contrasting  the  unanimity  of  the  people 
of  the  South  and  the  hesitation  about  the  war  everywhere 
in  the  North,  and  the  wide  and  bitter  opposition  to  it  in 
many  places  in  the  North  and  West. 

Russell8  writes  from  the  South:  "I  have  now  been  in 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  and 
in  none  of  these  great  States  have  I  found  the  least  indi 
cation  of  the  Union  sentiment  which  Mr.  Seward  always 
insists  to  exist  in  the  South." 

Schouler  describes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol. 
VI.,  p.  37)  the  effect  in  the  South  of  the  news  of  the  fall 
of  Fort  Sumter.  "National  allegiance  raised  scarcehr  a 
whisper,  but  in  the  whole  insurgent  area  volunteers  ral- 

*My  Diary  North  and  South,  p.  976,  May  12,  1860. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  67 

lied  for  defence,  and  at  sight  of  the  waving  stars  and 
bars,  as  trains  crowded  with  soldiers  went  by,  the  popula 
tion  of  the  hamlets,  and  the  workers  in  the  field,  black  and 
white,  cheered  for  Jeff  Davis  and  the  Confederate  States." 

Greeley,  too,  describes  the  time  ( American  Conflict, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  362):  "For  the  great  mails,  during  the  last 
few  weeks  of  1860,  sped  southward,  burdened  with  letters 
of  sympathy  and  encouragement  to  the  engineers  of  seces 
sion.  ...  As  trade  fell  off  and  work  in  the  cities 
and  manufacturing  villages  was  withered  at  the  breath  of 
the  Southern  sirocco,  the  heart  of  the  North  seemed  to 
sink  within  her;  and  the  charter  elections  at  Boston, 
Lowell,  Roxbury,  Charlestown,  Worcester,  &c.,  in  Massa 
chusetts,  and  at  Hudson,  &c.,  in  New  York,  which  took 
place  early  in  December,  1860,  showed  a  striking  and 
general  reduction  of  Republican  strength." 

The  Appendix  shows  that  Greeley  was  an  ardent  Aboli 
tionist  and  the  most  honored  and  respected  and  influen 
tial  Republican  of  his  day,  yet  see  what  George  William 
Curtis  tells  of  him  (Orations  and  Addresses,  Vol.  II.,  p.  429, 
et  seq.),  as  follows:  "For  the  right  of  secession,  as  Greeley 
maintained,  was  bottomed  on  the  Declaration  of  Inde 
pendence."  .  .  .  Such  a  political  philosophy  as  this, 
proclaimed  by  a  leading  organ  of  the  Republican  party, 
created  difficulties  for  a  President  situated  as  Mr.  Bu 
chanan  was  which  posterity  cannot  overlook. 

James  Russell  Lowell  wrote9  of  the  day  when  Lincoln's 
Administration  began,  "Even  in  that  half  of  the  Union 
which  acknowledged  him  as  President  there  was  a  large 
and  at  that  time  dangerous  minority  that  hardly  admitted 

9North  American  Magazine  for  January,    1864. 


68  The  Real  Lincoln. 

his  claim  to  office,  and  even  in  the  party  that  elected  him 
there  was  also  a  large  minority  that  suspected  him  of  being 
secretly  a  communicant  with  the  church  of  Laodicea." 
Russell  quotes  (My  Diary,  North  and  South,  p.  13) 
Bancroft,  the  historian,  afterwards  Minister  to  England, 
for  the  opinion  in  1860  that  the  United  States  had  no 
authority  to  coerce  the  people  of  the  South,  and  Bancroft 
told  Russell  that  this  opinion  was  widely  entertained 
among  men  of  all  classes  in  the  North.  And  Russell 
reports  that  he  found  the  same  opinion  prevailing  in 
Washington  in  March,  1861.  Russell  reprobates  with 
contempt  such  a  view  for  people  or  government,  which 
makes  his  evidence  the  more  valuable.  He  quotes  (p. 
14)  a  gentleman  as  saying  that  "the  majority  of  the 
people  of  New  York,  and  all  of  the  respectable  people, 
were  disgusted  at  the  election  of  such  a  fellow  as  Lincoln 
to  be  President,  and  would  back  the  Southern  people 
if  it  came  to  a  split."  And  Russell  goes  on  (p.  15),  in 
March,  1860,  "  I  was  astonished  to  find  little  sympathy  and 
no  respect  for  the  newly-installed  Government."  Dining 
with  a  banker  in  New  York  city,  March  18th,  1860,  he 
met  Hon.  Horatio  Seymour,  Mr.  Tilden,  and  Mr.  Bancroft. 
He  says  (p.  16),  "There  was  not  a  man  who  maintained 
that  the  Government  had  any  power  to  coerce  a  State,  or 
force  a  State  to  remain  in  the  Union."  Mr.  Seymour  held 
that  though  secession  would  produce  revolution,  it  was, 
nevertheless,  "a  right."  Russell  adds,  "  In  fact,  the  Federal 
Government  is  groping  in  the  dark";  and  again  (p.  18), 
it  "appears  to  be  drifting  with  the  current  of  events." 
He  found  (p.  28)  Senator  Sumner  and  Secretary  Chase 
disposed  to  let  the  South  "go  out  with  their  slavery." 
Elsewhere  (p.  211)  he  says  of  Chase,  "He  has  never  dis- 


The  Real  Lincoln.  69 

guised  his  belief  that  the  South  might  have  been  left  to  go 
at  first,  with  a  certainty  of  their  returning  to  the  Union. 

.  .  .  .  Nay  (p.  134),  more,  when  I  arrived  in  Wash 
ington" — which  was  in  March,  1861 — "some  members 
of  the  Cabinet  were  perfectly  ready  to  let  the  South  go. 
One  of  the  first  questions  put  to  me  by  Mr.  Chase,  in  my 
first  interview  with  him,  was  whether  I  thought  a  very 
injurious  effect  would  be  produced  to  the  prestige  of  the 
Federal  Government  in  Europe  if  the  Northern  States  let 
the  South  have  its  own  way,  and  told  them  to  go  in  peace." 
"For  my  own  part,"  said  he,  "I  should  not  be  adverse 
to  let  them  try  it,  for  I  believe  they  would  soon  find  out 
their  mistake."  Again  Russell  (p.  30),  describing  a  con 
ference  with  Secretary  Seward,  April  4th,  1861,  says 
that  Seward  "admitted  that  it  would  not  become  the 
spirit  of  the  American  Government,  or  of  the  Federal 
system,  to  use  armed  force  in  subjugating  the  Southern 
States  against  the  will  of  the  majority  of  the  people. 
Therefore,  if  the  majority  desire  secession  Mr.  Seward 
would  let  them  have  it."  Russell  reports  (p.  34)  a  simi 
lar  conference  with  Seward  in  Seward's  house,  as  follows: 

.  .  .  "The  Secretary  is  quite  confident  in  what  he 
calls  'reaction.' '  "When  the  Southern  States,"  he  says, 
"see  that  we  mean  them  no  wrong — that  we  intend  no 
violence  to  persons,  rights,  or  things—  .  .  .  they  will 
see  their  mistake,  and  one  after  another  they, will  come 
back  into  the  Union." 

See  another  entry  in  Russell's  Diary  for  July  5th,  1861 
(p.  143),  about  Lincoln's  message  just  delivered:  "After 
dinner  I  made  a  round  of  visits,  and  heard  the  diploma 
tists  speak  of  the  message ;  few,  if  any,  of  them,  in  its  favor. 
With  the  exception  of  Baron  Gerolt,  the  Prussian  Minister, 


70  The  Real  Lincoln. 

there  is  not  one  member  of  the  Legations  who  justifies 
the  attempt  of  the  Northern  States  to  assert  the  supremacy 
of  the  Federal  Government  by  force  of  arms."  And  again 
Russell  records  (September  3rd,  1861)  that,  when  there 
was  an  alarm  in  Washington,  "  the  Ministers  were  in  high 
spirit  at  the  prospect  of  an  attack  on  Washington.  Such 
agreeable  people  are  the  governing  party  of  the  United 
States  at  present,  that  there  is  only  one  representative 
of  a  foreign  power  here  who  would  not  like  to  see  them 
flying  before  Southern  bayonets." 

General  Horace  Porter  records10  that  during  a  visit 
of  Stanton  to  Grant,  near  Richmond,  Stanton  gave  a 
graphic  description  of  the  anxieties  that  had  been  experi 
enced  for  some  months  at  Washington  on  account  of  the 
boldness  of  the  disloyal  element  in  the  North. 

General  W.  T.  Sherman  says  (Memoir,  Vol.  I.,  p.  167) 
that  in  March,  1861,  "it  certainly  looked  as  though  the 
people  of  the  North  would  tamely  submit  to  a  disruption 
of  the  Union."  And  of  Washington  city  he  says,  "Even 
in  the  War  Department  and  about  the  public  offices  there 
was  open,  unconcealed  talk  amounting  to  high  treason." 

Channing  says  (Short  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  303, 
et  seq.),  "At  first  it  seemed  as  if  Jeff  Davis  was  right  when 
he  said  that  the  Northerners  would  not  fight."  And  Keifer 
says  (Slavery  and  Four  Years  of  War,  p.  172),  "Of  course 
there  was  a  troublesome  minority  North  who,  either  through 
political  perversity,  cowardice,  or  disloyalty,  never  did 

support  the  war,  at  least  willingly And  there 

were  those  also,  even  in  New  England,  who  had  never 
had  an  opportunity  to  be  tainted  with  slavery,  who  op 
posed  the  coercion  of  the  seceding  States,  and  who  would 

^Century  Magazine  for  June,  1897,  p.  201. 


Thejieal  Lincoln.  71 

rather  have  seen  the  Union  destroyed  than  saved  by 

war Though  patriotism  was  the  rule  with 

persons  of  all  parties  in  the  North,  there  were  yet  many 
who  professed  that  true  loyalty  lay  along  lines  other  than 
the  preservation  of  the  Union  by  war." 

Leland  says  (Lincoln,  p.  Ill),  "Yet  ....  the 
Democratic  press  of  the  North  and  the  rebel  organs  of 
the  South  continued  to  storrn  at  the  President  for  irrita 
ting  the  secessionists,  declaring  that  coercion  or  resistance 
of  the  Federal  Government  to  single  States  was  illegal." 
And  (p.  103):  ....  "The  Anti-War  party  was 
so  powerful  in  the  North  that  it  now  appears  almost  cer 
tain  that,  if  President  Lincoln  had  proceeded  at  once  to 
put  down  the  rebellion  with  a  strong  hand,  there  would 
have  been  a  counter-rebellion  in  the  North.  For  not 
doing  this  he  was  bitterly  blamed,  but  time  has  justified 
him.  By  his  forbearance,  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and  Mis 
souri  were  undoubtedly  kept  in  the  Federal  Union." 

.  .  .  "Hitherto  (p.  105)  the  press  had  railed  at 
Lincoln  for  wanting  a  policy;  and  yet  if  he  had  made  one 
step  towards  suppressing  the  rebels  "  a  thousand  Northern 
newspapers  would  have  pounced  upon  him  as  one  provok 
ing  war."  .  .  .  .  "It  is  certain  (p.  168)  that  by  this 
humane  and  wise  policy" — not  sending  more  soldiers 
through  Baltimore — which  many  attributed  to  cowardice, 
President  Lincoln  not  only  prevented  much  bloodshed 
and  devastation,  but  also  preserved  the  State  of  Mary 
land.  In  such  a  crisis  harshly  aggressive  measures  in 
Maryland  would  have  irritated  millions  on  the  border, 
and  perhaps  have  promptly  brought  the  war  further 
North." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
Change  of  the  Issue  —  Star  of  the  West. 

LINCOLN,  knowing  the  opposition  to  abolition  and  to 
coercion  and  the  readiness  to  resist  both  that  has 
been  shown  in  the  last  two  chapters  to  exist  in  the 
North  and  West,  disclaimed,  as  he  had  so  often  done  before, 
any  purpose  of  emancipation,  and  disguised  even  in  his 
Inaugural  whatever  purpose  he  had  of  forcing  back  the 
seceded  States,  and  astutely  used  the  firing  on  Fort  Sumter 
to  rouse  the  war  spirit.  The  word  "astutely"  is  aptly 
applied,  for  the  flag  had  been  fired  on  in  the  same  place 
two  months  earlier  —  an  exceedingly  important  fact  which 
has  been  very  strangely  ignored,  but  cannot  be  denied. 
The  steamer  Star  of  the  West  had  been1  sent  two  months 
earlier,  January  9,  1861,  with  food  and  two  hundred  re 
cruits2  to  relieve  the  United  States  garrison  in  Fort  Sumter, 
and  while  flying  the  great  flag  of  a  garrison  was  fired  on, 
was  struck  twice,  and  driven  away  —  "  retired  a  little  igno- 
miniously,"  Morse  reports  it  (Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  141);  and 
he  adds  that  Senator  Wigfall  jeered  insolently:  "Your  flag 
has  been  insulted;  redress  it  if  you  dare."  John  A.  Logan 
(Great  Conspiracy,  p.  143)  adds  further  words  of  Senator 
Wigfall,  "You  have  submitted  to  it  for  two  months." 
George  William  Curtis  (Orations  and  Addresses,  Vol.  I., 


and  Hay's  Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  VIII.,  p.  96,  et  seq. 
2It  has  been  represented  that  the  only  purpose  of  the  Star  of  the  West  was 
to  feed  the  soldiers  of  the  garrison,  but,  like  Nicolay  and  Hay  above,  Channing 
in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  313,  says  she  carried  "supplies  and  soldiers, 
and  Greeley  says,  in  his  American  Conflict,  Vol.  I.,  p.  412,  "with  two  hundred 
men  and  ample  provisions." 

(72) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  73 

p.  141)  deplores  it  as  follows:  "We  were  unable  or  unwilling 
to  avenge  a  mortal  insult  to  our  own  flag  in  our  own  waters 
upon  the  Star  of  the  West."  Ropes  and  Channing3  give 
a  like  description  of  the  occurrence.  Every  particular 
above  given  about  the  Star  of  the  West  is  confirmed4  by 
letters  of  J.  Holt,  Secretary  of  War;  of  L.  Thomas,  Assist 
ant  Adjutant-General,  and  of  Lieutenant  Charles  R. 
Wood,  who  conducted  the  expedition.  Thomas  instructed 
Wood  to  expect  to  be  fired  on  by  "  the  batteries  on  James' 
or  Sullivan's  Island,"  and  Holt  wrote  Major  Anderson, 
commandant  of  Fort  Sumter,  "  Your  forbearance  to  return 
the  fire  is  fully  appreciated  by  the  President."5 

Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  says  (History  of  the  United 
States,  Vol.  II.,  p.  50)  that  Major  Robert  Anderson,  com 
manding  Fort  Sumter,  "was  expressly  forbidden,"  by  the 
Government  in  Washington,  "  to  interfere  with  the  erection 
and  progress  of  the  works  that  were  being  built  .  .  for 
use  against  his  fort." 

Russell  wrote  to  the  London  Times  from  America  (My 
Diary,  North  and  South,  p.  72,  et  seq.,  and  p.  131,  et  seq.) : 
"It  is  absurd  to  assert  ....  that  the  sudden  out 
burst  when  Fort  Sumter  was  fired  upon  was  caused  by 
the  insult  to  the  flag.  Why,  the  flag  had  been  fired  on 
long  before  Sumter  was  attacked;  ....  it  had  been 
torn  down  from  the  United  States  arsenals  and  forts  all 
over  the  South  and  fifed  upon  when  the  Federal  flag  was 
flying  from  the  Star  of  the  West."  He  says,  too,  "Seces- 

3Ropes'  Story  of  the  Civil  War,  Part  I.,  p.  45;  Channing's  Short  History  of  the 
United  States,  p.  313. 

4  War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  I.,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  9,  10,  131-2,  137,  140. 

5For  Major  Anderson's  own  opinion  and  feeling  about  using  force  to  restrain 
recession,  see  page  38  of  the  same  volume. 


74  The  ReallLincoln. 

sion  was  an  accomplished  fact  months  before  Lincoln 
came  into  office,  but  we  heard  no  talk  of  rebels  and  pirates 
till  Sumter  had  fallen The  North  was  per 
fectly  quiescent What  would  not  the  value 

of  'the  glorious  burst'  of  patriotism  have  been,  had  it- 
taken  place  before  the  Charleston  batteries  had  opened 
on  Sumter — when  the  Federal  flag,  for  example,  was  fired 
on  flying  from  the  Star  of  the  West,  or  when  Beauregard 
cut  off  supplies,  or  Bragg  threatened  Pickens,  or  the  first 
shovelful  of  earth  was  thrown  up  in  hostile  battery.  But 
no.  New  York  was  then  engaged  in  discussing  States' 
Rights  and  in  reading  articles  to  prove  that  the  new  Gov 
ernment  would  be  traitors  if  they  endeavored  to  reinforce 
the  Federal  forts."  Gen.  Wm.  T.  Sherman  says  (Memoir, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  382) :  "  After  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln  in  1860, 
there  was  no  concealment  of  the  declaration  and  prepara 
tion  for  war  in  the  South.  In  Louisiana,  as  I  have  related, 
men  were  openly  enlisted,  officers  were  appointed,  and 
war  was  actually  begun,  in  January,  1861.  The  forts  at 
the  mouth  of  the  Mississippi  were  seized,  and  occupied 
by  garrisons  that  hauled  down  the  United  States  flag  and 
hoisted  that  of  the  State.  The  United  States  arsenal  at 
Baton  Rouge  was  captured  by  New  Orleans  militia,  its 
garrison  ignominiously  sent  off,  and  the  contents  of  the 
arsenal  distributed.  These  were  as  much  acts  of  war 
as  was  the  subsequent  firing  on  Fort  Sumter,  yet  no  public 
notice  was  taken  thereof."  ....  This  "firing  on 
the  flag"  on  the  Star  of  the  West  produced  no  sensation 
at  all,  but  was  accepted  by  the  whole  country  as  an  accom 
paniment  of  the  secession  of  the  States. 

Burgess  says  (The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  Vol.  I., 
p.  106)  "the  firing  upon  the  Star  of  the  West  was  really 


The  Real  Lincoln.  75 

the  beginning  of  the  war  of  the  rebellion—  .  .  .  (p.  107) 
the  Administration  simply  chose  not  so  to  regard  it;  ... 
Congress  was  not  prepared  for  it,  and  it  is  not  certain  that 
the  people  of  the  North  would  then  have  rallied  to  the 
President's  support." 

If  there  is  still  any  need  of  apology  for  the  action  of 
the  Confederate  Government  in  forcibly  seizing  Fort  Sum- 
ter,  as  it  had  for  many  weeks  been  seizing  other  forts 
within  its  territory,  we  have  the  defense  of  it  formulated 
by  Greeley  and  recorded  without  objection  or  comment  by 
Burgess,  who  quotes  (The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitu 
tion,  p.  167)  Greeley's  words,  that  "  the  Confederacy  had 
no  alternative  to  an  attack  upon  Fort  Sumter  except  its 
own  dissolution." 

We  have  learned  afresh  of  late  the  meaning  of  the  words 
used  above,  "to  rouse  the  war  spirit"  A  very  respectable 
part  of  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  this  country  deplored 
and  reprobated  the  war  lately  waged  by  the  United  States 
in  the  Philippines,  and  yet  did  make,  and  could  make, 
no  opposition,  but  supported  the  war  just  as  those  did  who 
approved  it  most  warmly.  We  know  now  that  a  war,  once 
begun,  sweeps  into  its  support,  not  only  the  regular  army, 
the  navy,  and  the  treasury,  but  volunteer  organizations 
and  the  youth  of  the  country,  who  think  they  must  re 
spond  to  any  national  call  for  arms.  That  this  "war 
spirit"  sent  large  armies  to  the  field  is  well  known.  But 
Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p. 
404),  "  Had  the  North  thoroughly  understood  the  problem; 
had  it  known  that  the  people  of  the  Cotton  States  were 
practically  unanimous;  that  the  action  of  Virginia,  North 
Carolina,  and  Tennessee  was  backed  by  a  large  and  gene- 


76  The  Real  Lincoln. 

rous  majority,  it  might  have  refused  to  undertake  the 

seemingly    unachievable    task (P.   405).     It 

is  impossible  to  escape  the  conviction  that  the  action  of 
the  North  was  largely  based  on  a  misconception  of  the 
strength  of  the  disunion  sentiment  in  the  Confederate 
States.  The  Northern  people  accepted  the  gage  of  war 
and  came  to  the  support  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  on  the  theory  that  a  majority  of  all  the  Southern 
States  except  South  Carolina  were  at  heart  for  the  Union, 
and  that  if  these  loyal  men  were  encouraged  and  protected 
they  would  make  themselves  felt  in  a  movement  looking 
towards  allegiance  to  the  National  Government." 

Rhodes  is  an  historian  who  speaks  with  very  high  au 
thority.  May  not  the  concession  that  he  makes  above 
be  called  an  apology  for  a  great  wrong  done  the  South. 
And  does  it  not  suggest  the  question  who  it  was  that  led 
the  North  into  the  "misconception"  that  he  describes? 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Resistance  in  Congress. 

THE  attitude  of  Congress  towards  coercion  and  eman 
cipation  is  our  best  guide  as  to  the  attitude  of 
their  constituents — the  people  of  the  States  called 
"loyal."  Horace  Greeley  comments  as  follows  on  the 
concession  made  in  President  Buchanan's  last  message 
that  he  had  no  authority  to  use  force  against  secession 
(American  Conflict,  Vol.  I.,  p.  272):  ....  "This 
assertion  of  the  radical  impotence  of  the  Government  .  .  . 
on  the  part  of  the  President  was  received  in  Congress 
with  general  and  concerted  taciturnity."  .  .  Gree 
ley  (Vol.  I.,  p.  370)  commends  ardently  the  long  and 
distinguished  career  of  John  J.  Crittenden,  and  outlines 
the  Crittenden  Compromise  proposed  by  him  as  follows: 
"It  allows  slavery  in  the  Territories  south  of  36°  30', 
and  says  that  States  from  south  of  that  line  may  come  in 
as  Slave  States.  It  protects  slavery  and  its  owners  in 
the  District,  so  long  as  it  exists  in  Virginia  and  Maryland, 
or  either.  The  United  States  shall  pay  the  owners  of 
slaves,  where  they  are  obstructed  by  the  people  of  a  county 
in  using  the  law  for  recovery  of  a  fugitive  slave.  It  gives 
assurance  that  no  amendment  in  the  future  shall  give 
Congress  the  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  in  the  States. 
It  pronounces  the  Personal  Liberty  Laws  null  and  void." 
Greeley  is  hotly  indignant  that  such  should  have  been 
the  feeling  of  Congress,  but  he  goes  on  (Vol.  I.,  p.  380) : 
"The  Conservatives,  so  called,  were  still  able  to  establish 

(77) 


78  The  Real  Lincoln. 

this  Grit  ten  den  Compromise  by  their  own  proper  strength, 
had  they  been  disposed  to  do  so.  The  President  was 
theirs;  the  Senate  strongly  theirs;  in  the  House  they  had 
a  small  majority,  as  was  evinced  by  their  defeat  of  John 
Sherman  for  Speaker." 

As  conclusive  proof  that  the  North  and  West  had  no 
such  purpose  as  emancipation,  Schouler  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  V.,  p.  507)  says  of  the  action  of  Congress, 
after  Lincoln's  inauguration,  as  follows:  "One  proposed 
amendment,  and  only  one,  was  sent  out  with  the  consti 
tutional  assent  of  the  two  Houses;1  not  as  a  compromise, 
but  as  a  pledge.  It  provided  that  no  amendment  should 
be  made  to  the  Constitution  authorizing  Congress  to 
abolish  or  interfere  within  any  State  with  the  domestic 
institution  of  slavery Republicans,  Demo 
crats,  and  the  great  mass  of  the  loyal  citizens  at  the  North 
were  willing  to  be  bound  by  such  an  assurance,  hand  and 
foot,  if  need  be,  in  proof  that  they  meant  no  aggression." 
Is  it  necessary  to  suppose  they  made  any  sacrifice  in  giving 
assurance  that  they  would  not  interfere,  in  view  of  the  vast 
amount  of  evidence  that  they  did  not  think  they  ought 
to  interfere  and  had  no  inclination  to  interfere? 

Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  confirms  the  above  accounts 
of  the  Crittenden  Compromise  that  was  proposed  and  the 
amendment  that  was  passed  in  Congress  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  II.,  p.  97),  as  follows:  "Both  Houses, 
each  by  more  than  two-thirds  majority,  recommended  a 
constitutional  amendment  depriving  Congress  forever  of 
the  power  to  touch  slavery  in  any  State  without  the  con 
sent  of  all  the  States."  And  he  says  of  the  "Crittenden 

1In  a  note  Schouler  gives  the  vote  on  it  in  the  House  as  133  to  65,  and  in  the 
Senate  as  24  to   12. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  79 

Compromise"  above  described,  "This  measure,  before 
Congress  all  winter,  was  finally  lost  for  lack  of  Southern 
votes." 

How  far  Congress  was  from  approving  the  Emancipa 
tion  Proclamation  may  be  judged  by  the  following  words 
of  Rhodes  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  215)  about  Lincoln's  recommenda 
tion  of  emancipation  in  his  Message  of  December,  1862: 
"Owing  to  distrust  of  him  and  his  waning  popularity, 
his  recommendations  in  this  message  were  not  considered 
by  Congress,  nor  had  they,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to 
ascertain,  any  notable  influence  on  public  sentiment." 

Boutwell  describes  (Lincoln,  Tributes  from  His  Asso 
ciates,  p.  87)  Lincoln's  dealings  with  one  of  the  amend 
ments  and  the  reluctance  of  Congress,  as  follows :  "  Slavery 
existed  in  States  that  had  not  engaged  in  the  rebellion, 
and  the  legality  of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  might 
be  drawn  in  question  in  the  courts.  One  thing  more  was 
wanted — an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  abolishing 
slavery  everywhere  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States. 

The  preliminary  resolution  was  secured  after  a  pro 
tracted  struggle  in  Congress,  and  the  result  was  due,  in  a 
pre-eminent  degree,  to  the  personal  and  official  influence 
of  Mr.  Lincoln.  In  one  phrase  it  may  be  said  that  every 
power  of  his  office  was  exerted  to  secure  in  the  Thirty- 
eighth  Congress  the  passage  of  the  resolution  by  which 
the  proposed  amendment  was  submitted  to  the  States."2 

Nicolay  and  Hay  say  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  38) 
that  even  when  his  most  subservient  Congress  subsequently 

2In  connection  with  BoutwelPs  account  of  the  way  the  "preliminary  resolu 
tion"  was  passed  in  Congress  for  this  amendment,  it  will  be  interesting  to  see, 
in  the  chapter  headed  Fictitious  States,  how  enough  States  were  voted  to  pass 
the  amendment. 


80  The  Real  Lincoln. 

"legalized"  his  usurpations,  "there  was  about  the  action 
a  certain  hesitation  which  robbed  it  of  the  grace  of  spon 
taneous  generosity."  How  persistent  the  opposition  con 
tinued  to  be  may  be  judged  by  the  fact  that  Mr.  Lincoln's 
Emancipation  Proclamation  failed,  as  late  as  June,  1864, 
to  get  in  Congress  the  two-thirds  vote  necessary  to  fix  it 
in  the  Constitution,  and  had  to  go  over  to  the  next  session, 
when  the  war  was  practically  ended. 


CHAPTER  X. 
Opposition  in  the  Regular  Army. 

/^10L.  A.  K.  McClure  says  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War 
Time,  p.  56),   "When  Lincoln  turned  to  the  mili 
tary  arm  of  the  Government,  he  was    appalled    by  the 
treachery  of  the  men  to  whom  the  nation  should  look 
for  its  preservation."     Scarcely  any  were  so  devoted  to 
the  flag,  none  knew  so  well  the  seriousness  of  the  step,  as 
the  officers  of  the  regular  army,  but,  notwithstanding,  Ida 
Tarbell  says,1  three  hundred  and  thirteen,  nearly  one-third, 
resigned.     General  Keifer  says  (Slavery  and  Four  Years  of 
War,  p.  171)  that  about  March,  1861,     "disloyalty  among 
prominent  officers  was  for  a  while  the  rule."  General  Butler 
says  that  General  Scott,  commander  of  the  army,  recom 
mended  to  the  President  (Butler's  Book,  p.  99  and  p.  142) 
"that  the  wayward  sisters  be  allowed  to  depart  in  peace," 
meaning  the  seceded  States,  and  Butler's  story  is  confirmed 
by  Channing  (Short  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  380,  et 
seq.).    George  Ticknor  Curtis  gives  (Life  of  James  Buchanan, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  297)  the  particulars  of  General  Scott's  "views," 
submitted   to   President   Buchanan,    dated   October  9th, 
1860,   which  provided  for  a  division  of  the  Union  into 
four    separate    confederacies.     Ida    Tarbell    shows2    that 
General  Scott  recommended  to  the  President  the  with 
drawal  of  the  United  States  troops  from  Fort  Sumter 
and  from  Fort  Pickens  in  Pensacola  harbor.     Much  pity 

lMcClure's  Magazine  for  February,  1899. 
2McClure's  Magazine  for  April,  1899,  p.  263. 

(81  ) 
6 


82  The  Real  Lincoln. 

has  been  spent  on  Major  Anderson,  cut  off  from  supplies 
and  bombarded  in  Fort  Sumter,  but  one  of  Lincoln's  eulo 
gists  has  to  rejoice  now  that  he  was  spared  the  pain  of 
reading  the  reproaches  contained  in  a  letter  written  him  by 
Major  Anderson,  censuring  him  for  proposing  to  use  force. 
The  letter  miscarried.  We  have  other  letters  of  Major 
Anderson's  showing  that  he,  like  Scott  and  Seward,  and 
the  rest,  thought  coercion  out  of  the  question.  He  wrote,3 
signing  officially,  to  Thomas,  United  States  Adjutant- 
General,  earnestly  deprecating  the  expedition  proposed 
to  bring  him  reinforcements  in  Fort  Sumter,  saying,  "I 
frankly  say  that  my  heart  is  not  in  the  war  that  I  see  is 
to  be  commenced.  That  God  will  still  avert  it,  and  cause 
us  to  revert  to  pacific  measures  to  maintain  our  rights, 
is  my  ardent  prayer."  Nicolay,  too,4  tells  of  a  reproach 
ful  letter  that  Anderson  wrote  Lincoln  about  using  force 
at  Fort  Sumter.  Major-General  Abner  Doubleday  gives 
(Battles  and  Leaders  of  the  Civil  War,  Vol.  I,  p.  40,  et  seq.) 
a  very  full  account,  as  eye-witness  of  Anderson's  whole 
course,  in  accord  with  the  above.  Rhodes  (History  of 
the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  72)  quotes  from  a  letter 
of  Senator  Sumner  to  John  Bright,  that  Lincoln  had 
answered  Bright,  who  urged  him  to  issue  an  edict  of 
emancipation,  "I  would  do  it  if  I  were  not  afraid  that 
half  the  officers  would  fling  down  their  arms  and  three 
more  States  would  rise."  Hamlin  says  (Life  and  Times 
of  Hannibal  Hamlin,  p.  430),  "Yet  many  a  gallant  Union 
officer  ....  declared  disdainfully  that  he  would 
not  fight  for  the  Abolitionists."  ....  Schouler 

zWar  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies. 
Series  I.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  294. 

4In  the  earlier  book  that  he  wrote,  The  Outbreak  of  the  Rebellion,  at  page  55. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  83 

says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  218),  that 
in  1861  "Sherman  and  Buell  in  Kentucky,  Dix  in  Mary 
land,  and  Halleck  in  Missouri,  slave  regions  less  positively 
disloyal,  took  a  more  conservative  attitude,  and  ordered 
slaves  to  be  kept  out  of  their  lines,"  instead  of  encouraging 
them  to  leave  their  masters.  Rhodes  says  (Vol.  IV.,  p. 
182)  that  Governor  0.  P.  Morton,  of  Indiana,  charged, 
in  his  official  communications  to  Washington,  General 
Rosecrans  with  being  a  rebel  sympathizer,  which  Rhodes 
records,  though  he  does  not  believe  it  true,  Rosecrans 
being  the  predecessor  of  Buell,  Grant's  predecessor  in  the 
chief  command  in  the  West.  Rhodes  says  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  335),  "The  attitude  of  all  but 
three  of  Grant's  corps  commanders  on  the  19th  April, 
1862,  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  letter  of  Grant 
to  Halleck  of  that  date :  "  At  best  three  of  my  army  corps 
commanders  take  hold  of  the  new  policy  of  arming  the 
negroes  and  using  them  against  the  enemy  with  a  will. 
They,  at  least,  are  so  much  of  soldiers  as  to  feel  them 
selves  under  obligation  to  carry  out  a  policy  which  they 
would  not  inaugurate,  in  the  same  good  faith  and  with 
the  same  zeal  as  if  it  was  of  their  own  choosing." 

Rhodes  quotes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  73)  from  Greeley's  "prayer  of  twenty  million,"  else 
where  described  in  this  book,  the  following :  .  .  .  "A 
large  portion  of  our  regular  officers,  with  many  of  the 
volunteers,  evidence  far  more  solicitude  to  uphold  slavery 
than  to  put  down  the  rebellion." 


CHAPTER  XL 
Opposition  in  the  Volunteer  Army. 

IT  WOULD  be  supposed  that  however  many,  as  above 
shown,  of  the  people  of  the  North  and  West  op 
posed  or  disapproved  the  war,  it  had  the  ardent 
support  of  all  the  soldiers  at  least  who  volunteered  "to 
defend  the  flag"  on  Lincoln's  first  call  for  seventy-five 
thousand  men.  About  this  we  get  a  strange  enlighten 
ment  in  the  account  given  by  Russell  (My  Diary,  North 
and  South,  p.  155,  et  seq.)  of  his  meeting  the  Fourth  Pennsyl 
vania  Regiment  going  home  from  the  Bull  Run  battle 
field  to  the  sound  of  the  cannon  that  opened  the  battle. 
A  note  on  page  553  of  Greeley's  American  Conflict  describes 
the  same  from  General  McDowell's  official  report  of  the 
battle  of  Bull  Run,1  how  on  the  eve  of  battle  the  Fourth 
Pennsylvania  Regiment  of  Volunteers  and  the  battery 
of  artillery  of  the  Eighth  New  York  Militia,  whose  term 
of  service  had  expired,  insisted  on  their  discharge,  though 
the  General  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  both  on  the  spot, 
tried  hard  to  make  them  stay  five  more  days;  .... 
"  and  the  next  morning,  when  the  army  moved  into  battle, 
these  troops  moved  to  the  rear  to  the  sound  of  the  enemy's 
guns,  every  moment  becoming  more  distinct  and  more 
heavy."  And  Greeley  goes  on  to  say,  "It  should  here  be 
added  that  a  member  of  the  New  York  battery  aforesaid, 
who  was  most  earnest  and  active  in  opposing  General 

^ee  the  account  of  it  in  General  McDowell's  report  of  the  battle,  in  the  War 
of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies,  Series  I., 
Vol.  II.,  p.  325. 

(84) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  85 

McDowell's  request  and  insisting  on  an  immediate  dis 
charge,  was  at  the  next  election,  in  full  view  of  all  the  facts, 
chosen  sheriff  of  the  city  of  New  York — probably  the 
most  lucrative  office  filled  by  popular  election  in  the 
country."2 

In  the  Outlook  of  September  6th,  1902,  the  Rev.  Edward 
Everett  Hale  quotes  as  of  unchallenged  historic  value  a 
letter  written  three  weeks  after  the  battle  of  Bull  Run 
by  a  gentleman  in  an  important  political  position  in  Wash 
ington,  which  attributes  like  shameful  desertion  in  the 
face  of  the  enemy  to  "various  batteries,"  and  their  wel 
come  home.  He  goes  on,  "  How  does  the  country  be 
have?  .  .  .  The  poltroons,  .  .  .  have  you  hung 
any  of  them  yet  in  Boston?  ....  And  the  people 
of  New  York  let  these  people  return  to  their  business!" 

Russell  gives  as  the  reason  why  General  Patterson  did 
not  bring  his  army  from  the  upper  Potomac  to  help 
General  McDowell  at  Bull  Run,3  that  "  out  of  twenty-three 
regiments  composing  his  force,  nineteen  refused  to  stay 
an  hour  after  their  time."  Can  any  explanation  be  sug 
gested  but  that  these  soldiers  and  their  friends  at  home 
reprobated  the  task  to  which  they  were  ordered?  We 
have  General  Patterson's  report  to  General  Scott4  of  his 
repeated  unsuccessful  appeals  to  his  men  not  to  leave 
the  army  with  the  enemy  in  their  very  presence.  He 
furthermore  complained  (p.  175)  that  his  own  zeal  and 
loyalty  to  the  cause  was  publicly  impeached,  and  General 

2If  it  was  possible  to  conceive  of  any  of  the  soldiers  on  the  Southern  side  so 
deserting  the  field  that  day,  where  would  they  have  found  kinsman  or  friend  to 
give  them  shelter,  food,  or  water,  from  that  day  forward? 

3My  Diary,  North  and  South,  p.  179;  see,  too,  Channing's  Short  History  of  the 
United  States,  p.  308,  et  seq. 

*War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  I.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  166-170. 


86  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Scott's  contemptuous  answer  (p.  178)  gives  no  sort  of 
contradiction  to  the  charges.  Russell  says  (My  Diary 
North  and  South,  p.  179),  "The  outcry  against  Patterson 
has  not  yet  subsided,  though"  .  .  .  nineteen  out  of 
twenty-three  of  his  regiments  refused  to  stay  in  the  field, 
as  shown  above.  Gen.  W.  T.  Sherman  says  (his  Memoir, 
Vol.  L,  p.  188),  four  days  after  the  first  battle  of  Manassas, 
or  Bull  Run,  .  .  .  .  "I  had  my  brigade  about  as 
well  governed  as  any  in  that  army,  although  most  of  the 
ninety-day  men,  especially  the  Sixty-ninth,  had  become 
exceedingly  tired  of  the  war  and  wanted  to  go  home. 
Some  of  them  were  so  mutinous,  at  one  time,  that  I  had 
Ayre's  battery  to  unlimber,  threatening  if  any  dared 
leave  camp  without  orders  I  would  open  fire  on  them." 
Pages  188  to  191  describe  a  mutiny  with  Lincoln  present, 
and  end  with,  "This  spirit  of  mutiny  was  common  to 
the  whole  army,  and  was  not  subdued  till  several  regiments, 
or  parts  of  regiments,  had  been  ordered  to  Fort  Jefferson, 
Florida,  as  punishment." 

The  above  is  hard  to  reconcile  with  the  popular  belief 
that  the  early  campaigns  were  pushed  with  enthusiasm 
by  the  volunteers.  Later,  at  the  time  when  General 
Hooker  took  command  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac,  we 
have  Hooker's  testimony,  quoted  from  the  Report  of 
the  Congressional  Committee  on  the  Conduct  of  the  War 
by  Col.  Henderson,  of  the  English  Army  (Life  of  Stonewall 
Jackson,  Vol.  II.,  p.  505),  "At  the  time  the  army  was 
turned  over  to  me,  desertions  were  at  the  rate  of  about 
two  hundred  a  day."  Then,  after  describing,  in  his  words 
elsewhere  quoted,  the  efforts  of  great  numbers  of  the 
people  at  home  to  induce  the  soldiers  to  desert,  he  goes 


The  Real  Lincoln.  87 

on  as  follows:  "At  that  time  perhaps  a  majority  of  the 
officers,  especially  those  high  in  rank,  were  hostile  to  the 
policy  of  the  Government  in  the  conduct  of  the  war.  The 
Emancipation  Proclamation  had  been  published  a  short 
time  before,  and  a  large  element  of  the  army  had  taken 
sides  antagonistic  to  it,  declaring  they  would  never  have 
embarked  in  the  war  had  they  anticipated  the  action  of 
the  Government." 

Major-General  John  E.  Wool  wrote  Secretary  Stanton, 
September  3rd,  1862, 5  "  We  have  now  more  treason  in  the 
army  than  we  can  well  get  along  with." 

Ida  Tarbell  says,0  "Nothing  could  have  been  devised 
which  would  have  created  a  louder  uproar  in  the  North 
than  the  suggestion  of  a  draft.  All  through  the  winter 
of  1862-63  Congress  wrangled  over  the  bill  ordering  it, 
much  of  the  press  denouncing  it  meantime  as  despotic 
and  contrary  to  American  institutions."  General  Grant 
says  (Memoir,  Vol.  II.,  p.  23)  that  during  August,  1864, 
"right  in  the  midst  of  these  embarrassments,  Halleck 
informed  me  that  there  was  an  organized  scheme  on  foot 
to  resist  the  draft,  and  suggested  that  it  might  become 
necessary  to  withdraw  troops  from  the  field  to  put  it  down." 
Nicolay  and  Hay  (Vol.  VI.,  p.  3)  tell  of  violent  resistance 
to  the  draft  in  Pennsylvania. 

About  the  volunteer  soldiers'  attitude  toward  emanci 
pation  we  find  the  following: 

Schouler  says  of  General  B.  F.  Butler  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  216),  When  he  reached  Mary 
land,  under  the  first  call  to  arms,  "he  offered  the  use  of 

^War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the   Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series   III.,   Vol.    II.,   p.    509. 

«McClure's  Magazine,  Vol.  XIII.,  for  June,  1899,  p.  156. 


88  The  Real  Lincoln. 

his  regiment,  as  a  Massachusetts  Brigadier,  to  put  down 
any  slave  uprising  that  might  occur  there."  Nicolay 
and  Hay  say  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  185)  that  the 
Union  army  showed  the  strongest  sympathy  with  its  always 
immensely  popular  general,  McClellan,  in  his  bold  protests 
against  emancipation,  and  that  there  was  actual  danger  of 
revolt  in  the  army  against  the  Emancipation  Proclamation 
when  General  Burnside  turned  over  the  command  of  his 
army  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  men  to  General 
Hooker  in  Virginia.  In  Warden's  Life  of  Chase  (p.  485, 
et  seq.)  a  letter  of  September,  1862,  from  Chase  to  John 
Sherman,  says:  "I  hear  from  all  sources  that  nearly  all 
the  officers  in  Buell's  army,  and  that  Buell  himself,  are 
pro-slavery  in  the  last  degree."  From  Hilton  Head, 
South  Carolina,  General  0.  M.  Mitchell  reported  to  Secre 
tary  Stan  ton,7  September  20,  1862,  "  I  find  a  feeling  pre 
vailing  among  the  officers  and  soldiers  of  prejudice  against 
the  blacks;  ....  am  entirely  certain  that  under 
existing  organization  there  is  little  hope  of  allaying  or 
destroying  a  feeling  widely  prevalent  and  fraught  with 
the  most  injurious  consequences."  Page  431  shows  the 
same  General,  writing  to  Halleck,  General  in  Chief  at  Wash 
ington,  in  March,  1863,  "I  was  thus  saddled  with  pro- 
slavery  generals  in  whom  I  had  not  the  least  confidence." 

7 War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  Union  and  Confederate  Armies,  Series 
II.,  Vol.  XIV.,  p.  438. 


CHAPTER  XIT. 

Opposition  to  the  Emancipation 
Proclamation. 

C BANNING   says  (Short  History  of  the  United  States, 
p.  329)  of  freeing  the  slaves  as  a  war  measure,  that 
though    he    knew   he    had    a    perfect   right    to    do    it, 
Lincoln  knew  that  public  opinion  in  the  North  would  not 
approve  this  action. 

A.  K.  McClure,  discussing  the  question  whether  to 
emancipate,  speaks  of "the  shivering  hesita 
tion  of  even  Republicans  throughout  the  North."  .  .  . 

The  same  says,1  "The  Emancipation  Proclamation  had 
been  issued  that  caused  a  cold  chill  throughout  the  Re 
publican  ranks,  and  there  was  little  prospect  of  filling  up 
the  broken  ranks  of  our  army."  Arid  the  same  McClure 
refers  (p.  228)  to  the  "  blatant  disloyalty  that  was  heard 
in  many  places  throughout  the  North." 

Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p. 
162),  "But  Lincoln  himself,  with  his  delicate  touch  on 
the  pulse  of  public  opinion,  detected  that  there  was  a  lack 
of  heartiness  in  the  response  of  the  Northern  people.  In 
his  "strictly  private"  letter  to  Hamlin,  the  Vice-President, 
he  manifested  his  keen  disappointment.  "While  I  hope 
something  from  the  proclamation,"  he  wrote,  "my  expec 
tations  are  not  as  sanguine  as  those  of  some  friends.  The 
time  for  its  effect  southward  has  not  come :  but  northward 
the  effect  should  be  instantaneous.  It  is  six  days  old,  and 

1  Recollections  of  Half  a  Century,  copyright,  1902,  p.  220. 
(89) 


90  The  Real  Lincoln. 

while  commendation  in  the  newspapers  and  by  distin 
guished  men  is  all  that  a  vain  man  could  wish,  the  stocks 
have  declined  and  troops  come  forward  more  slowly  than 
ever.  This,  looked  soberly  in  the  face,  is  not  very  satis 
factory." 

Henderson  (Life  of  Stonewall  Jackson,  Vol.  II.,  p.  355, 
et  seq.),  though  he  commends  with  ardor  Lincoln's  issue 
of  the  Emancipation  Proclamation,  says  that  by  it  "the 
Constitution  was  deliberately  violated,"  and  that  "the 
armies  of  the  Union  were  called  upon  to  fight  for  the  free 
dom  of  the  negro";  ....  that  "the  measure  was 
daring.  It  was  not  approved  by  the  Democrats— and 
many  of  the  soldiers  were  Democrats — or  by  those — and 
they  were  riot  a  few — who  believed  that  compromise  was 
the  surest  means  of  restoring  peace;  ....  who 
thought  the  dissolution  of  the  Union  a  smaller  evil  than 
the  continuance  of  the  war.  The  opposition  was  very 
strong."  .... 

A.  B.  Hart  says  (Life  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  p.  309), 
.  .  .  .  "But  one  of  the  effects  ...  of  the  first 
Proclamation  of  Emancipation  was  an  increase  of  the 
Democratic  vote  in  Ohio  and  in  Indiana,  and  the  conse 
quent  election  of  many  Democratic  members  of  Congress." 

In  the  "Life  and  Times  of  Hannibal  Hamlin"  by  Chas. 
Eugene  Hamlin,  Cambridge,  1899,  pp.  436,  437,  we  find 
the  following:  "The  generally  accepted  explanation  of 
the  Republican  reverses  in  the  election  of  1862  is  that  they 
were  primarily  due  to  the  Emancipation  Proclamation, 
which  was  issued  in  September." 

Dr.  Holland  says  (Abraham  Lincoln,  1866,  p.  408: 
"Either  through  the  failure  of  McClellan's  campaign,  or 


The  Real  Lincoln.  91 

the  effect  of  the  emancipation,  or  the  influence  of  both 
together,  the  Administration  had  received  a  rebuke  through 
the  autumn  elections  of  1862.  Rhodes  says  (History  of 
the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  163),  "  In  October  and  Novem 
ber  elections  took  place  in  the  principal  States,  with  the 
results  that  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Illinois,  and  Wisconsin,  all  of  which  except  New 
Jersey  had  cast  their  electoral  votes  for  Lincoln,  declared 
against  the  party  in  power.  A  new  House  of  Representa 
tives  was  chosen,  the  Democrats  making  conspicuous  gains 
in  the  States  mentioned.  The  same  ratio  of  gain  ex 
tended  to  the  other  States  would  have  given  them  the 
control  of  the  next  House — a  disaster  from  which  the 
Administration  was  saved  by  New  England,  Michigan, 
Iowa,  and  the  Border  Slave  States.  The  elections  came 
near  being  what  the  steadfast  Republican  journal,  the  New 
York  Times,  declared  them  to  be,  'A  vote  of  want  of 
confidence  in  the  President.'  Since  the  elections  followed 
so  closely  upon  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation,  it  is 
little  wonder  that  the  Democrats  declared  that  the  people 
protested  against  Lincoln's  surrender2  to  the  radicals, 
which  was  their  construction  of  the  change  of  policy  from 
a  war  for  the  Union  to  a  war  for  the  Negro.  Many  writers 
have  since  agreed  with  them  in  this  interpretation  of  the 
result.  No  one  can  doubt  that  it  was  a  contributing 
force  operating  with  these  other  influences:  the  corruption 
in  the  War  Department  before  Stanton  became  Secretary, 
the  suppression  of  free  speech  and  freedom  of  the  press, 
arbitrary  arrests  which  had  continued  to  be  made  by  mili 
tary  orders  of  the  Secretary  of  War." 
Nicolay  arid  Hay  record  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  II. ; 

Observe  the  significant  word  used  by  Rhodes. 


92  The  Real  Lincoln. 

p.  261)  great  losses  in  the  elections  in  consequence  of  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation.  General  B.  F.  Butler  says 
(Butler's  Book,  p.  536):  "November  came,  and  with  it 
the  elections  in  the  various  States.  The  returns  were 
ominous  and  disheartening  enough.  Everywhere  there 
was  reaction  of  feeling  adverse  to  the  Administration. 
In  the  strong  Republican  States  majorities  wrere  reduced. 
In  all  others  the  opposition  wras  triumphant  and  the 

Administration   party   defeated Among   the 

causes  of  the  defeat  was  opposition  to  the  Government's 
anti-slavery  policy."  And  Butler  quotes  from  a  letter  of 
Seward  to  .his  wife  that  "the  returns  were  ominous"; 
that  in  all  but  strong  Republican  States  "the  opposition 
was  triumphant  and  the  Administration  party  defeated." 
Ida  Tarbell,  in  McClure's  Magazine  for  January,  1899 
(p.  165),  says:  "Many  and  many  a  man  deserted  in  the 
winter  of  1862-1 863  because  of  the  Emancipation  Proclama 
tion.  He  did  not  believe  the  President  had  the  right  to 
issue  it,  and  he  refused  to  fight.  Lincoln  knew,  too,  that 
the  Copperhead  agitation  had  reached  the  army,  and  that 
hundreds  of  them  were  being  urged  by  parents  and  friends 
hostile  to  the  Administration  to  desert."  Page  162  shows 
that  Lincoln  himself  "comprehended  the  failure  to  re 
spond  to  the  emancipation  or  to  support  the  war";  that 
(p.  163)  "New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illi 
nois,  and  Wisconsin  reversed  their  vote,  and  the  House 
showed  great  Democratic  gains."  A.  K.  McClure's  (Lin 
coln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p.  112,  et  seq.)  says :  "  There 
was  no  period  from  January,  1864,  until  3d  of  September, 
when  McClellan  would  not  have  defeated  Lincoln  for 
President." 


The  Real  Lincoln.  93 

Charles  A.  Dana,  in  his  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War 
(p.  180,  et  seq.)  says:  "The  people  of  the  North  might 
themselves  have  become  half  rebels  if  this  proclamation  had 
been  issued  too  soon/'  and  that  "  two  years  before,  perhaps, 
the  consequences  of  it  might  have  been  our  entire  defeat." 

The  Emancipation  Proclamation  has  been  described  in 
song  and  story,  on  canvas  and  in  marble,  as  a  joyous  and 
exultant  announcement  of  freedom  to  the  slaves.  See 
how  differently  Ida  Tarbell  describes  it  and  its  author, 
and  she  is  almost  a  worshipper  of  Lincoln.  She  says :  "  At 
last  (p.  525,  et  seq.)  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  was 
a  fact,  but  there  was  little  rejoicing  in  his  heart,  .... 
no  exultation;  ....  indeed,  there  was  almost  a 
groan  in  the  words  in  which,  the  night  after  he  had  given 
it  out,  he  addressed  a  party  of  serenaders."  .  .  .  Rhodes 
says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  72,  et  seq.) 
that  on  the  22nd  of  July,  1862,  Seward  objected  in  Cabinet 
meeting  to  giving  out  the  threat  of  his  purpose  to  emanci 
pate  that  Lincoln  issued  "as  likely  to  seem  at  this  juncture 
the  last  measure  of  an  exhausted  government;  .  .  our 
last  shriek  in  retreat."  And  Miss  Tarbell  records  that 
Lincoln  himself  said  a  few  months  later:  "Hope  and 
fear  contended  over  the  new  policy  in  uncertain  conflict." 
And  she  goes  on :  "  As  he  had  foreseen,  dark  days  followed. 
There  were  mutinies  in  the  army;  ...  the  events 
of  the  fall  brought  him  little  encouragement.  Indeed,  the 
promise  of  emancipation  seemed  to  effect  nothing  but 
disappointment  and  uneasiness;  stocks  went  down;  troops 
fell  off.  In  five  great  States — Indiana,  Illinois,  Ohio, 
Pennsylvania,  and  New  York — the  elections  went  against 
him." 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
In  What  Proportion  Divided. 

T~F  ALL  this  testimony  suggests  a  desire  to  know  in  what 
-*-  proportion  the  people  of  the  North  and  West  were 
divided  between  those  who  approved  Lincoln's  great 
achievements  and  those  who  disapproved  them,  answers 
more  or  less  specific — some  of  them  estimating  the  numer 
ical  ratio — are  furnished  by  the  witnesses  whose  testimony 
we  have  been  considering.  Burgess  says  (The  Civil  War 
and  the  Constitution,  Vol.  T.,  p.  134)  of  the  Democratic 
party  in  I860,  .  .  .  "There  was  another  great  party 
at  the  North,  numbering  almost  as  many  adherents  as  the 
Republican  party  itself,  which  was  ready  to  yield  to  almost 
any  demand,  as  the  price  of  the  Union,  that  the  Secessionists 
might  make."  .  .  A  letter  of  General  Wm.  T.  Sherman 
to  General  Halleck,  of  September  17th,  1863,  says  (Memoir, 
Vol.  I.,  p.  339) :  "The  people  of  even  small  and  unimpor 
tant  localities,  North  as  well  as  South,  had  reasoned  them 
selves  into  the  belief  that  their  opinions  were  superior 
to  the  aggregated  interests  of  the  whole  nation.  Half 
our  territorial  nation  rebelled,  on  a  doctrine  of  secession 
which  they  themselves  now  scout;  and  a  real  numerical 
majority  actually  believed  that  a  little  State  was  endowed 
with  such  sovereignity  that  it  would  defeat  the  policy 
of  the  great  whole."  Leland,  after  stating  (Lincoln,  p. 
94)  that  when  the  Confederate  Government  was  organized 
at  Montgomery  "no  one  had  threatened  the  new  Southern 
Government,  and  at  this  stage  the  North  would  have  suf- 

(94) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  95 

fered  it  to  withdraw  in  peace  from  the  Union, "  .  .  .  . 
says  (p.  96)  specifically  that  "the  number  of  men  in  the 
North  who  were  willing  to  grant  them  everything  very 
nearly  equalled  that  of  the  Republican  party."  Again 
Leland  says  (p.  95,  et  seq.),  "But  the  strict  truth  shows 
that  the  Union  party,  what  with  the  Copperheads,  or 
sympathizers  with  the  South,  at  home,  and  with  open 
foes  in  the  field,  was  never  at  any  time  much  more  than 
equal  to  either  branch  of  the  enemy,  and  that,  far  from 
being  the  strongest  in  numbers,  it  was  as  one  to  two. 
Those  in  its  ranks  who  secretly  aided  the  enemy  were 
numerous  and  powerful.  The  Union  armies  were  some 
times  led  by  generals  whose  hearts  were  with  the  foe." 
And  Leland  goes  on  (p.  96),  "President  Lincoln  found 
himself  in  command  of  a  beleagured  fortress,  ...  a 
powerful  enemy  storming  without,  and  nearly  half  his 
men  doing  their  utmost  to  aid  the  enemy  from  within." 
So  quite  consistently  Leland  explains  (p.  170)  the  atti 
tude  of  England,  as  follows :  "  To  those  who  did  not  under 
stand  American  politics  in  detail,  the  spectacle  of  about 
one-third  of  the  population,  even  though  backed  by  con 
stitutional  law,  opposing  the  majority,  seemed  to  call  for 
little  sympathy."  And  Dr.  Holland  says  (Abraham  Lin 
coln,  p.  291),  "All  these  labors  Lincoln  performed  with 
the  knowledge  .  .  .  that  seven  States  were  in  open 
revolt  and  that  a  majority  throughout  the  Union  had  not 
the  slightest  sympathy  with  him."1 

JDr.  Holland  is  one  of  Lincoln's  most  ardent  eulogists.  Perhaps  he  did  not 
know  that  Lincoln  had  said,  in  a  published  letter,  which  Rhodes  says,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  409,  may  be  called  "a  stump  speech"  as  follows:  "I  freely  acknowledge  myself 
the  servant  of  the  people,  according  to  the  bond  of  service — the  United  States 
Constitution — and  that,  as  such,  I  am  responsible  to  them." 


96  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Henderson  says,2  "The  majority  of  the  Northern  people 
held  the  Federal  Government  paramount,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  they  held  that  it  had  no  power  either  to  punish 
or  coerce  the  individual  States.  This  had  been  the  atti 
tude  of  the  founders  of  the  Republic,  and  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  their  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  was 
this:  Although  the  several  States  were  morally  bound 
to  maintain  the  compact  into  which  they  had  voluntarily 
entered,  the  obligation,  if  any  one  State  chose  to  repudiate 
it,  could  not  be  legally  enforced.  Their  idea  was  a  Union 
based  upon  fraternal  affection. 

"  Mr.  Lincoln's  predecessor  in  the  presidential  chair  had 
publicly  proclaimed  that  coercion  was  both  illegal  and 
inexpedient,  and  for  the  three  months  which  intervened 
between  the  secession  of  South  Carolina  and  the  inaugu 
ration  of  the  Republican  President,  made  not  the  slight 
est  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  peaceable  establish 
ment  of  the  new  Confederacy.  Not  a  single  soldier 
reinforced  the  garrisons  of  the  military  forts  in  the 
South.  Not  a  single  regiment  was  recalled  from  the 
western  frontiers;  and  the  seceded  States,  without  a  word 
of  protest,  were  permitted  to  take  possession,  with  few  ex 
ceptions,  of  the  forts,  arsenals,  navy-yards,  and  custom 
houses  which  stood  on  their  own  territory.  It  seemed 
that  the  Federal  Government  was  only  waiting  until  an 
amicable  adjustment  could  be  arrived  at  as  to  the  terms 
of  separation."  Morse,  in  like  manner,  goes  back  to  tell 
how  President  Buchanan  and  the  leaders  and  the  press 
regarded  arid  dealt  with  the  actual  secession  of  States 
which  began  and  grew  to  maturity  in  President  Buchan- 


2Lt/e  of  General  Thomas  J.  Jackson — Stonewall  Jackson — p.   116,  et  sea. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  97 

ari's  administration.  Referring  to  Buchanan's  last  mes 
sage,  in  which  he  pronounced  coercion  to  be  quite  out  of 
the  question,  Morse  says  (his  Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  190, 
et  seq.):  "But  while  this  message  of  Mr.  Buchanan  has 
been  bitterly  denounced,  and  with  entire  justice,  .  .  yet 
a  palliating  consideration  ought  to  be  noted.  He  had 
little  reason  to  believe  that,  if  he  asserted  the  right  and 
duty  of  forcible  coercion,  he  would  find  at  his  back  the 
indispensable  force,  moral  and  physical,  of  the  people. 
Demoralization  at  the  North  was  widespread.  After  the 
lapse  of  a  few  months  this  condition  passed,  arid  then 
those  who  had  been  beneath  its  influence  desired  to  forget 
the  humiliating  fact,  and  hoped  that  others  might  either 
forget,  or  never  know  the  measure  of  their  weakness.  In 
order  that  they  might  save  their  good  names,  it  was  natural 
that  they  should  seek  to  suppress  all  evidence  which  had 
not  already  found  its  way  upon  the  public  record;  but 
enough  remains  to  show  how  grievously  for  a  while  the 
knees  were  weakened  under  many  who  enjoy — and  right 
fully,  by  reason  of  the  rest  of  their  lives — the  reputation 
of  stalwart  patriots.3 

For  example,  late  in  October  General  Scott  suggested 
to  the  President  a  division  of  the  country  into  four  separate 

3Morse  might  have  quoted  Governor  Hicks,  of  Maryland,  as  a  notable  example. 
General  Butler,  at  page  208  of  Butler's  Book,  says,  in  describing  his  moving  his 
Massachusetts  troops  to  Washington  by  way  of  Annapolis,  "Governor  Hicks  had 
protested  to  me  against  the  landing  of  my  troops,  and  he  had  also  protested  to 
the  President,  to  whom  he  had  made  the  amazing  proposition  that  the  national 
controversy  should  be  referred  to  Lord  Lyons,  the  British  Minister."  Nicolay's 
Outbreak  of  the  Rebellion  quotes  Hicks,  at  page  88,  as  assuring  the  Baltimoreans 
gathered  on  Monument  Square,  after  their  bloody  collision  with  the  Massachusetts 
soldiers,  on  the  19th  of  April,  that  he  would  wish  his  "right  arm  might  wither" 
should  he  fail  in  such  an  emergency.  And  Lamon's  Lincoln,  at  page  517,  quotes 
the  words  from  a  letter  of  Governor  Hicks  about  the  same  time  which  expresses 
his  wish  that  the  guns  he  is  issuing  may  be  used  "to  kill  Lincoln."  This  Morse, 
too,  quotes  in  his  Lincoln,  p.  197,  et  seq. 

7 


98  The  Real  Lincoln. 

confederacies,  roughly  outlining  their  boundaries.  Scott 
was  a  dull  man,  but  he  was  at  the  head  of  the  army  and 
enjoyed  a  certain  prestige,  so  that  it  was  impossible  to 
say  that  his  notions,  however  foolish  in  themselves,  were 
of  no  consequence.  But  if  the  blunders  of  General  Scott 
could  not  fatally  wound  the  Union  cause,  the  blunders  of 
Horace  Greeley  might  conceivably  do  so.  Republicans 
everywhere  throughout  the  land  had  been  educated  by 
his  teachings  and  had  become  accustomed  to  take  a  large 
part  of  their  knowledge  and  their  opinions  in  matters 
political  from  his  writings.  Then  follows  (p.  191)  Gree- 
ley's  full  acknowledgment  of  the  right  of  secession  which 
appears  above.4  And  it  was  this  man — an  authoritative 
though  unofficial  power  in  the  land — who  dared  to  say  in 
his  great  open  letter  addressed  to  Lincoln  through  his 
Tribune  as  quoted  above,  "  Nine-tenths  of  the  whole  Amer 
ican  people,  North  and  South,  are  anxious  for  peace- 
peace  on  almost  any  terms";  a  ratio  of  opposition  greatly 
above  Leland's  computation  above  quoted.  That  Greeley 
said  this  advisedly,  with  the  fullest  knowledge,  and  honestly, 
cannot  be  questioned. 

Nor  was  the  New  York  Herald  behind  the  New  York 
Tribune  in  like  protests.  Morse  says  (Lincoln,  Vol.  I., 
p.  193),  "On  November  9th,  1860,  the  Democratic  New 
York  Herald,  discussing  the  election  of  Lincoln,  said: 
"For  far  less  than  this  our  fathers  seceded  from  Great 
Britain";  it  also  declared  coercion  to  be  "out  of  the  ques 
tion,"  and  laid  down  the  principle  that  each  State  possesses 
the  "right  to  break  the  tie  of  the  confederacy  as  a  nation 
might  break  a  treaty,  and  to  repel  coercion  as  a  nation 

4Pages  58  and  67  of  this  book. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  99 

might  repel  invasion."  Greeley,  too,  quotes  (American 
Conflict,  Vol.  I.,  p.  358,  et  seq.)  the  New  York  Herald  of 
9th  November,  1860:  ....  "And  if  the  Cotton 
States  shall  decide  that  they  can  do  better  out  of  the  Union 
than  in  it,  we  insist  on  letting  them  go  in  peace.  The  right 
to  secede  may  be  a  revolutionary  one,  but  it  exists  never 
theless;  and  we  do  not  see  how  one  party  can  have  a  right 
to  do  what  another  party  has  a  right  to  prevent.  We  must 
ever  resist  the  asserted  right  of  any  State  to  remain  in  the 
Union  and  nullify  or  annul  the  laws  thereof.  To  withdraw 
from  the  Union  is  quite  another  matter.  And  whenever 
a  considerable  section  of  our  Union  shall  deliberately 
resolve  to  go  out  we  shall  resist  all  coercive  measures  to 
keep  it  in.  We  hope  never  to  live  in  a  Republic  whereof 
one  section  is  pinned  to  the  residue  by  bayonets." 

See  also  Butler's  Book,  p.  141,  et  seq.,  for  editorials  of 
Greeley's  Tribune,  avowing  that  States  might  properly 
secede. 

Hugh  McCulloch  says  (Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Cen 
tury,  p.  15),  "  Still,  as  I  have  said,  it  is  by  no  means  certain 
that  secession  would  have  been  crushed  in  its  incipient 
stages  if  a  more  resolute  man  than  Mr.  Buchanan  had  been 
in  his  place."  Again  he  says  (p.  154)  that  the  leaders  in 
secession,  "  did  not,  however,  anticipate  a  general  uprising 
of  the  people  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States  in  defense 
of  the  Union.  They  confidently  expected  that  Missouri, 
Kentucky,  and  Maryland  would  unite  with  other  States 
in  which  slavery  existed,  and  that  Indiana,  Illinois,  and 
Ohio  would  give  reluctant  and  partial  aid  to  the  Federal 
Government,  if  coercive  measures  should  be  resorted  to 
for  its  support.  For  these  expectations  there  were  appar- 


100  The  Real  Lincoln. 

ently  good  reasons.5  The  most  prominent  men  in  Missouri, 
Kentucky,  and  Maryland,  if  not  Disunionists,  were  more 
attached  to  slavery  than  the  Union,  while  their  people 
generally  were  bound  to  the  people  of  the  Southern  States 
by  family  or  commercial  ties.  What  might  be  called  the 
civilization  of  those  Central  States  was  widely  different 
from  that  of  the  Northern  States,  and  they  would  un 
doubtedly  have  joined  the  South  if  they  had  not  been 
prevented  by  the  prompt  and  energetic  measures  of  the 
Government.  The  disposition  of  the  people  of  Maryland 
was  indicated  by  the  treatment  which  a  Massachusetts 
regiment  received  as  it  passed  through  Baltimore.  At 
the  commencement  of  the  war  Missouri  was  in  open  revolt, 
and  desperate  battles  were  fought  upon  her  soil  before 
she  could  be  prevented  from  casting  in  her  lot  with  the 
South.  The  same  influences  which  were  at  work  in  Mis 
souri  and  Maryland  were  potent  also  in  Kentucky."  He 
then  gives  his  personal  observations  in  Kentucky,  showing 
that  it  was  with  the  South.  He  says  (p.  155)  of  Missouri 
and  Kentucky,  "Both  would  have  united  with  the  South 
if  they  could  have  had  their  own  way.  Nor  was  the  ex 
pectation  unreasonable  that  the  Western  free  States  and 
some  of  the  leading  Republicans  also  were  opposed  to  coer 
cion."  McCulloch  goes  on  (page  158) :  "In  traveling  through 
Southern  Indiana  in  the  autumn  of  1860  and  the  following 
winter,  I  was  amazed  and  disheartened  by  the  general 
prevalence  of  the  non-coercive  sentiment.  .  .  As  far  as  I 
could  learn,  the  same  opposition  to  coercion  prevailed 
to  a  considerable  extent  in  the  other  free  States  bordering 

5Besides  the  "good  reasons"  given  by  McCulloch,  other  very  strong  reasons 
are  given  in  this  book  for  the  failure  in  every  one  of  the  States  he  names  to  meet 
the  expectations  of  the  Southern  leaders.  For  these  "strong  reasons"  see  chapters 
17  to  23  inclusive  of  this  book. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  101 

upon  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi  rivers,  and  I  could  not  help 
feeling  that  the  Union  ....  had  no  deep  hold  on 
the  affection  of  the  people.  My  duties  as  President  of 
the  Bank  of  the  State  required  my  presence  at  Indianapolis 
when  the  Legislature  of  1860-61  was  in  session,  and  I  was 
astonished  at  some  of  the  speeches  of  some  of  its  most 
prominent  members  against  what  they  called  coercion — the 
coercion  of  sovereign  States.  In  their  opinion,  the  Union 
was  not  worth  preserving,  if  it  could  only  be  preserved 
by  force.  Indiana,  they  said,  would  furnish  no  soldiers, 
nor  would  she  permit  soldiers  from  other  States  to  pass 

through  her  territory,  to  subjugate  the  South 

The  sentiment  of  southern  Illinois  was  in  sympathy  with 
that  of  the  people  of  southern  Indiana." 

If  any  higher  and  more  conclusive  authority  than  those 
above  quoted  about  the  question  in  hand  can  be  imagined, 
it  is  Secretary  Stanton,  speaking  as  Secretary  of  War  for 
Lincoln.  In  defense  of  the  President's  usurpation  of 
despotic  powers,  he  issued  February  14th,  1861,  a  paper 
which  contains  the  following:  "Every  department  of  the 
Government  was  paralyzed  by  treason.  Defections  ap 
peared  in  the  Senate,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  in 
the  Cabinet,  in  the  Federal  Courts.  Ministers  and  Consuls 
returned  from  foreign  countries  to  enter  the  insurrection 
ary  councils.  Commanding  or  other  officers  of  the  army  and 
in  the  navy  betrayed  our  councils  or  deserted  their  posts 
for  commands  in  the  insurgent  forces.  Treason  was  fla 
grant  in  the  revenue  and  in  the  post-office  service,  as  well 
as  in  the  Territorial  governments  and  in  the  judicial  re 
serves. 

"Not  only  governors,  judges,  legislators,  and  ministerial 


102  The  Real  Lincoln. 

officers  in  the  States,  but  whole  States,  rushed  out  one  after 
another  with  apparent  unanimity  into  rebellion.  .  .  . 
Even  in  the  portions  of  the  country  which  were  most 
loyal  political  combinations  and  secret  societies  were 

formed    furthering    the    work    of    disunion 

Armies,  ships,  fortifications,  navy-yards,  arsenals,  military 
posts  and  garrisons,  one  after  another,  were  betrayed  or 
abandoned  to  the  insurgents." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 
Attitude  of  England. 

rpHE  fact  that  the  great  number  of  people  in  the  North 
-L  and  West  who  opposed  coercion  had  the  sympathy 
of  England  will  not  be  without  interest.  Rhodes 
says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  503):  "John 
Stuart  Mill  speaks  of  the  'rush  of  nearly  the  whole  of  the 
upper  and  middle  classes  of  my  own  country,  even  those  who 
pass  for  liberals,  into  a  furious  pro-Southern  partisanship, 
the  working  classes  and  some  of  the  literary  and  scientific 
men  being  almost  the  sole  exceptions  to  the  general  frenzy. 
Autobiography,  p.  268.'"  Mill's  tone  shows  that  he  is 
an  unwilling  witness  to  the  state  of  feeling  in  England. 
And  on  the  next  page  to  the  above,  Rhodes  quotes  the 
London  Times  of  the  7th  of  November,  1861,  as  follows: 
"  The  contest  is  really  for  empire  on  the  side  of  the  North 
and  for  independence  on  that  of  the  South,  and  in  that 
respect  we  recognize  an  exact  analogy  between  the  North 
and  the  government  of  George  III.  and  the  South  and  the 
thirteen  revolted  provinces.  These  opinions  may  be  wrong, 
but  they  are  the  general  opinion  of  the  English  nation." 
On  page  509  Rhodes  again  quotes  the  London  Times  of 
October  9,  1861 :  "  The  people  of  the  South  may  be  wrong, 
but  they  are  ten  million."  Elsewhere  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  358) 
Rhodes  says,  "Four-fifths  of  the  House  of  Lords  were 
'no  well-wishers  of  anything  American,'  and  most  of  the 
House  of  Commons  desired  the  success  of  the  South." 
And  Rhodes  shows  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  337)  such  an  attitude  of 

(103) 


104  The  Real  Lincoln. 

the  premier  and  of  Earl  Russell  that  Mr.  Adams,  United 
States  Minister  to  England,  wrote,  September  2,  1862, 
"  Unless  the  course  of  the  war  should  soon  change,  it  seems 
to  me  my  mission  must  come  to  an  end  by  February." 
Again  he  reports  (p.  339)  that  "Gladstone,  October  7, 
1862,  at  a  banquet  at  New  Castle  said,  'We  may  anticipate 
with  certainty  the  success  of  the  Southern  States  so  far 
as  their  separation  from  the  North  is  concerned.' "  Rhodes 
quotes  (p.  392,  et  seq.)  Gladstone  writing  to  Senator  Sum- 
ner,  November,  1863,  "In  England  I  think  nearly  all 
consider  war  against  slavery  unjustifiable,"  and  complains 
(p.  80)  that  Gladstone  said  to  the  men  of  Manchester, 
April  14th,  "We  have  no  faith  in  the  propagation  of  free 
institutions  at  the  point  of  the  sword."  Rhodes  quotes, 
too  (note  on  p.  85),  from  a  letter  from  the  Duke  of  Argyle 
to  Sumner,  "I  cannot  believe  in  there  being  any  Union 
party  in  the  South,  and,  if  not,  can  the  continuance  of 
the  war  be  justified?" 

Not  the  war  only  upon  the  South,  but  its  being  forced 
on  the  people  of  the  North  and  West  met  heavy  censure 
from  England.  Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States, 
Vol.  III.,  p.  514)  of  the  London  Times  and  the  Saturday 
Review,  Their  "criticisms  of  the  arbitrary  measures  of 
our  Government  ....  were  galling,"  and  quotes 
from  the  Saturday  Review  of  the  19th  of  October,  1861, 
"The  arrest  of  the  newly-elected  members  of  the  legis 
lative  assembly  of  Maryland  before  they  had  had  any 
time  to  meet,  without  any  form  of  law  or  prospect  of  trial, 
merely  because  President  Lincoln  conceived  that  they 
might  in  their  legislative  capacity  do  acts  at  variance 
with  his  interpretation  of  the  American  Constitution, 


The  Real  Lincoln,  105 

was  as  perfect  an  act  of  despotism  as  can  be  conceived. 
.  .  .  .  It  was  a  coup  d'etat  in  every  essential  feature/' 
and  the  paper  goes  on,  November  23,  1861,  "The  land  of 
the  free  is  a  land  in  which  electors  may  not  vote,  for  fear 
of  arrest,  and  judges  may  not  execute  the  law,  for  fear  of 
dismissal — in  which  unsubmissive  advocates  are  threat 
ened  with  imprisonment  and  hostile  newspapers  are  sup 
pressed."  No  wonder,  then,  that,  as  Rhodes  tells  us 
(Vol.  II.,  p.  27),  "James  Russell  Lowell  took  grievously 
to  heart  the  comments  of  the  English  press  and  the  actions 
of  the  English  Government." 

If  to  any  one  it  seems  that  England's  course  needs 
apology  or  defense,  we  have  it,  published  lately,  and  by  a 
very  able  writer,  and  one  with  no  sort  of  leaning  towards 
the  South  or  tolerance  of  slavery.  The  Literary  Digest 
for  March  29,  1902,  at  page  417,  quotes  from  the  Atlantic 
Monthly,  Goldwin  Smith,  as  follows:  "The  sympathy  of 
the  people  of  England  in  general  could  be  challenged  by 
the  North  only  on  the  ground  that  the  North  was  fighting 
against  slavery.  But  when  we,  friends  of  the  North, 
urged  this  plea,  we  had  the  misfortune  to  be  met  by  a 
direct  disclaimer  of  our  advocacy  on  the  part  of  our  clients. 
President  Lincoln  repudiated  the  intention  of  attacking 
slavery.  Seward  repudiated  it  in  still  more  emphatic  terms. 
Congress  had  tried  to  bring  back  the  Slave  States  to  the 
fold  by  promises  of  increased  securities  for  slavery,  in 
cluding  a  sharpening  of  the  Fugitive-Slave  Law.  What 
had  we  to  say?  ....  Had  the  issue  been,  as  Lin 
coln,  Seward,  and  Congress  represented,  merely  political 
and  territorial,  we  might  have  had  to  decide  against  the 
North.  Few  who  have  looked  into  the  history  can  doubt 


106  The  ReallLincoln. 

that  the  Union  originally  was,  and  was  generally  taken 
by  the  parties  to  be,  a  compact  dissoluble,  perhaps  most 
of  them  would  have  said  at  pleasure,  dissoluble  certainly 
on  breach  of  the  articles  of  the  Union.  Among  these 
articles,  unquestionably,  were  the  recognition  and  protec 
tion  of  slavery,  which  the  Constitution  guaranteed  by 
means  of  a  fugitive-slave  law.  It  was  not  less  certain  that 
the  existence  of  slavery  was  threatened  by  the  abolition 
movement  at  the  North,  and  practically  attacked  by  the 
election  of  Lincoln,  who  had  declared  that  the  continent 
must  be  all  slave  or  all  free;  meaning,  of  course,  that  it 
must  be  all  free."  He  quotes  Lincoln's  formal  declara 
tion  of  the  right  of  secession  in  his  speech  beginning  "  any 
people  anywhere,"  &c.,  recorded  at  page  61  of  this  book, 
and  goes  on  as  follows :  "  A  stronger  ground  for  separation 
there  could  not  possibly  be  than  the  radical  antagonism 
between  the  social  organizations  of  the  two  groups  of 
States,  which  made  it  impossible  that  they  should  live 
in  harmony  under  the  same  political  roof,  arid  had  rendered 
their  enforced  union  a  source  of  ever  increasing  bitter 
ness  and  strife 

"If  England  was  divided  in  opinion,  so  was  the  North 
itself.  There  was  all  the  time  in  the  North  a  strong  Demo 
cratic  party  opposed  to  the  war.  The  autumn  elections 
of  1862  went  greatly  against  the  Government.  It  was  in 
expectation  of  calling  forth  Northern  support  that  Lee 
invaded  Pennsylvania,  and  had  he  conquered  at  Gettys 
burg,  his  expectation  would  probably  have  been  fulfilled. 
It  actually  was  fulfilled,  after  a  fashion,  by  the  draft  riot 
in  New  York."  The  Independent,  too  (for  April  10,  1902, 
p.  850),  quotes  Goldwin  Smith:  "In  justice  to  the  British 


The  Real  Lincoln.  107 

people  it  must  always  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  American 
Government  had  distinctly  proclaimed  that  the  abolition 
of  slavery  was  not  the  object  of  the  war." 

The  sympathy  of  the  Continental  powers  of  Europe 
concerns  us  less  than  that  of  England,  exhibited  above, 
but  it  is  interesting  to  notice  how  the  sympathy  of  one  of 
them  lay,  as  exhibited  in  the  following  extract: 

Munsey's  Magazine  (for  May,  1902)  quotes  from  George 
Bancroft's  Eulogy  of  Lincoln,  delivered  12th  February, 
1866,  in  the  Hall  of  Representatives,  a  reference  to  the 
Pope,  who  "alone  among  the  temporal  sovereigns  recog 
nized  the  Chief  of  the  Confederate  States  as  a  President, 
and  his  supporters  as  a  people,  and  gave  counsels  for  peace 
at  a  time  when  peace  meant  the  victory  of  secession." 


CHAPTER  XV. 
Despotism  Conceded. 

IF  ANY  are  scandalized  or  startled  at  seeing  Lincoln 
called  usurper  or  despot,  they  are  invited  to  observe 
that  he  was  denounced  as  both  by  many  great 
Republican  leaders  of  his  own  day.  The  words  in  which 
Fremont,  Wendell  Phillips,  Fred  Douglass,  and  Horace 
Greeley,  all  stanchest  of  Republicans  and  Abolitionists, 
issued  their  call  for  the  convention  of  Republicans  that 
met  at  Cleveland,  Ohio,  May  31,  1864,  for  the  sole  pur 
pose  of  defeating  Mr.  Lincoln's  second  election,  were  as 
follows:  "The  public  liberty  was  in  danger";  that  its  object 
was  to  arouse  the  people  "and  bring  them  to  realize  that 
while  we  are  saturating  Southern  soil  with  the  best  blood 
of  the  country  in  the  name  of  liberty,  we  have  really  parted 
with  it  at  home."1 

Capt.  C.  C.  Chesney,  of  the  Royal  Engineers,  says,2 
the  garrison  of  Washington  was  being  drained,  not  so 
much  for  Meade's  re-enforcement  as  to  check  the  insurrec 
tion  in  New  York.  And  when  Lee  had  retired  to  the  Rapi 
st  is  interesting  to  compare  these  words  with  those  in  which  John  Paul  Jones 
gave  a  warning  to  the  great  Constitutional  Convention  in  Philadelphia,  when 
Jefferson  asked  and  obtained  from  him  an  elaborate  memorandum  of  his  views 
of  the  merits  of  the  constitution  when  it  was  finished.  His  words  in  the  memo 
randum  are  as  follows:  .  .  .  "Though  General  Washington  might  be  safely 
trusted  with  such  tempting  power  as  the  chief  command  of  the  fleet  and  the  army, 
yet,  depend  on  it,  in  some  other  hands  it  could  not  fail  to  overset  the  liberties  of 
America.  .  .  .  Deprive  the  President  of  the  power  or  the  right  to  draw  his 
sword  and  lead  the  fleet  and  the  army,  under  some  plausible  pretext  or  under 
any  circumstances  whatever,  to  cut  the  throats  of  part  of  his  fellow  citizens  in  order 
to  make  himself  tyrant  over  the  rest." 

2Vol.  II.,  p.  131.     Just  after  Gettysburg. 

(108) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  109 

dan,  Chesney  says  of  Meade  in  his  front,  "  Large  detach 
ments  were  at  this  time  made  from  his  strength  to  increase 
the  garrison  which  was  to  aid  General  Dix  in  enforcing 
the  obnoxious  conscription  in  New  York."  Again  he 
speaks  (p.  149)  of  Lincoln  and  his  Cabinet  as  reducing  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac  largely  in  order  to  carry  out  the  con- 
scrip  tion^Mdcb^they  had  been  obliged  to  postpone  in  New 
York.  £few?g/ihousand  troops  under  General  Dix  occu 
pied  that  rebellious  city  in  August,  1863,  and  the  obnoxious 
ballot  was  enforced  without  further  resistance,  in  spite  of 
"the  strenuous  opposition  of  Governor  Seymour."  .  .  . 

Rhodes  tells  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  164, 
et  seq.)  of  ....  "open  dissatisfaction  which  in 
Pennsylvania  and  Wisconsin  broke  out  into  positive  vio 
lence  over  the  draft  necessary  under  the  call  for  300,000 
militia." 

Among  many  records  of  the  suppression  of  newspapers 
we  have  the  following,  in  a  letter  of  Gen.  John  A.  Dix3  to 
Secretary  Stanton,  February  18,  1862,  "Samuel  Sands 
Mills,  publisher  and  proprietor,  and  Thomas  H.  Piggott, 
editor,  of  The  South,  were  arrested  last  evening,  kept  in 
the  station-house  during  the  night,  and  sent  to  Fort  Mc- 
Henry  this  morning.  The  office  of  The  South  was  seized 
last  evening,  and  is  in  possession  of  the  police.  John  M. 
Mills,  a  partner  in  the  concern,  has  also  been  arrested, 
and  will  be  sent  to  Fort  McIIenry  immediately." 

The  same,  page  791,  has  in  a  note,  "  For  the  full  proceed 
ings  of  the  House  on  July  18,  1861,  concerning  the  charges 
against  May,  the  attack  by  a  Baltimore  man  on  the  Federal 
troops,  and  Chief  of  Police  Kane's  connection  there- 

3War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
•Series  II.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  788. 


110  The  Real  Lincoln. 

with,  see  Congressional  Globe  for  July  20,  1861,  p.  196, 
et  seq." 

The  same  volume,  page  795,  gives  Pinker  ton's  report 
of  the  arrest,  about  midnight,  12th  September,  1866,  of 
Messrs.  Scott,  Wallis,  F.  Key  Howard,  Hall,  May,  and 
Wax-field. 

The  same  volume,  p.  938  to  956,  tells  of  the  arrest  of 
Messrs.  Flanders  Brothers,  editors  of  the  Gazette,  Franklin 
county,  N.  Y.,  for  complete  opposition  to  the  war — and 
of  exclusion  of  the  Gazette  from  the  mails. 

Rhodes  describes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  175,  et  seq.)  the  suppression  of  a  "disloyal"  paper  in 
Cincinnati,  and  (p.  253)  the  exclusion  from  the  mails  of 
the  New  York  World  and  the  suppression  of  the  Chicago 
Times  by  General  Burnside,  and  says  of  Burnside's  orders, 
"Strange  pronunciamentos  were  these  to  apply  to  the 
States  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  where  there  was  no 
war;  where  the  courts  were  open  and  the  people  were 
living  under  the  American  Constitution  and  English  law." 
Could  there  be  more  conclusive  evidence  of  the  attitude 
of  Chicago  and  the  great  States  he  names,  for  which  Chi 
cago  is  a  great  commercial  centre,  than  Rhodes's  record, 
as  follows :  "  The  Times  had  gone  beyond  any  print,  North 
or  South,  in  its  opposition  to  the  war  and  its  devotion  to 
the  interests  of  the  rebellion."  Rhodes  goes  on  to  say 
(p.  254)  that  "  the  President  yielded,  ....  but  he 
deserves  no  credit,  .  .  .  .  for  he  simply  responded  to 
the  outburst  of  sentiment"  in  Chicago,  manifested  by 
action  of  the  city  government  and  the  State  government, 
"which  sentiment,"  he  adds,  "was  beginning  to  spread 
over  the  whole  North."  Rhodes's  note  on  page  253, 


The  Real  Lincoln.  Ill 

quoted  from  the  Chicago  Tribune  of  June  5,  1863,  gives 
more  light  on  the  matter  and  fixes  the  date  of  the  events. 

We  have  Lincoln's  own  order  to  General  Dix  of  May 
18,  1864,4  to  "arrest  and  imprison  in  any  fort  or  military 
prison  in  your  command  the  editors,  proprietors  and  pub 
lishers  of  the  New  York  World  and  the  New  York  Journal 
of  Commerce"  The  two  journals  were  the  very  embodi 
ment  of  all  that  was  most  respected,  so  that  General  Dix 
hesitated  (p.  388),  and  was  compelled  to  obey  by  peremp 
tory  letters  from  Secretary  Stan  ton.  Rhodes  mentions 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  555)  "the  arrest 
of  a  crippled  newsboy  for  selling  the  New  York  Daily  News 
in  Connecticut." 

It  would  be  difficult  to  characterize  the  above  described 
usurpations  in  language  stronger  than  was  applied  at  the 
time.  Rhodes  quotes  (p.  555)  from  a  lecture  of  Wendell 
Phillips  delivered  in  New  York  and  Boston  December, 
1861,  as  follows:  "Lieber  says  that  habeas  corpus,  free 
meetings  like  this,  and  a  free  press,  are  the  three  elements 
which  distinguish  liberty  from  despotism.  All  that  Saxon 
blood  has  gained  in  the  battles  and  toils  of  two  hundred 
years  are  these  three  things.  But  to-day,  Mr.  Chairman, 
every  one  of  them — habeas  corpus,  the  right  of  free  meeting, 
and  a  free  press — is  annihilated  in  every  square  mile  of  the 
Republic.  We  live  to-day,  every  one  of  us,  under  martial 
law.  The  Secretary  of  State  puts  into  his  bastile,  with  a 
warrant  as  irresponsible  as  that  of  Louis  XIV.,  any  man 
whom  he  pleases.  And  you  know  that  neither  press  nor 
lips  may  venture  to  arraign  the  Government  without  being 
silenced.  At  this  very  moment  one  thousand  men  at 

*Record  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial  Number  125,  p.  388. 


112  The  Real  Lincoln. 

least  are  '  bastiled '  by  an  authority  as  despotic  as  that  of 
Louis For  the  first  time  in  our  history  gov 
ernment  spies  frequent  our  great  cities."  And  Rhodes 
quotes  (p.  534)  protests  of  Robert  C.  Winthrop,  in  a  speech 
of  November  2,  1864 — almost  three  years  later — of  "  news 
papers  silenced  and  suppressed  at  the  tinkling  of  an  exe 
cutive  bell  a  thousand  miles  away  from  the  scene  of  hos 
tilities."  And  Rhodes  goes  on  (p.  556),  "Yet  the  matter 
did  not  go  unquestioned.  Senator  Trumbull  introduced 
a  resolution  asking  information  from  the  Secretary  of 
State  in  regard  to  these  arrests,  and,  in  his  remarks  sup 
porting  it,  pointed  out  the  injustice  and  needlessness  of 
such  procedure.  "What  are  we  coming  to,"  he  asked, 
"if  arrests  may  be  made  at  the  whim  or  the  caprice  of  a 
Cabinet  Minister?"  and,  when  Senator  Hale  asked,  "Have 
not  arrests  been  made  in  violation  of  the  great  principles 
of  our  Constitution?  "  no  one  could  gainsay  it" ;  and  Rhodes 
says  (p.  557),  "In  truth,  the  apprehension  of  men  in  Maine, 
Vermont,  Connecticut,  and  northern  NewT  York  on  sus 
picion  that  they  were  traitors,  instead  of  leaving  them  to 
be  dealt  with  by  the  public  sentiment  of  their  thoroughly 
loyal  communities,  savored  rather  of  an  absolute  monarch 
than  of  a  desire  to  govern  in  a  constitutional  way.5 

Rhodes  quotes  from  a  letter  from  Schleinden  to  Sumner 
(p.  442),  "One  of  the  most  interesting  features  of  the 
present  state  of  things  is  the  unlimited  power  exercised  by 
the  Government.  Mr.  Lincoln  is  in  that  respect  the  equal, 

if  not  the  superior,  of  Louis  Napoleon,  and  Rhodes  refers, 

___„ ,  « 

5Lincoln  has  been  accused  by  no  one  else  of  "capriciousness."  Does  not  this 
book  show  that  the  States  Rhodes  names,  and  all  the  rest  where  these  despotic 
methods  were  used,  were  not  "thoroughly  loyal,"  and  that  at  least  four  of  them 
would  have  joined  the  Confederacy  if  Lincoln  had  not  restrained  them  by  these 
methods  and  other  similar  defiance  of  all  constitutional  restraint? 


The  Real  Lincoln.  113 

too,  (p.  514)  to  "  the  comparison  constantly  made  in  Eng 
land  between  the  coup  d'etat  of  Louis  Napoleon  and  the  coup 
d'etat  of  Abraham  Lincoln,"  and,  excusing  the  use  of  such 
power,  adds,  "  The  county  attorney  of  Illinois  had  assumed 
the  power  of  a  dictator";  and  this  as  early  as  July,  1861. 
Rhodes's  History  of  the  United  States  is  one  of  the  latest 
records  in  this  matter.  While  he  eulogizes  Lincoln  as 
ardently  as  any  other,  as  is  shown  in  the  Appendix,  he 
speaks  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  234,  et  seq.)  of  "  the  enormity  of  the 
acts  done  under  his  authority,"  and  says  "he  stands  re 
sponsible  for  the  casting  into  prison  of  citizens  of  the  United 
States  to  be  counted  by  thousands  (p.  230)  on  orders  as 
arbitrary  as  the  Lettres  de  Cachet  of  Louis  XIV.,"  when 
the  mode  of  procedure  might  have  been,  "as  in  Great 
Britain  in  her  crises  between  1793  and  1802,  on  legal  war 
rants,"  and  he  pronounces  Lincoln's  conduct  "inexpedient, 
unnecessary,  and  wrong."6  And  Rhodes  says  more  speci 
fically  on  the  same  page,  " After  careful  consideration,  .  .  . 
I  do  not  hesitate  to  condemn  the  arbitrary  arrests  and  the 
arbitrary  interference  with  the  freedom  of  the  press  in 
States  which  were  not  in  the  theatre  of  the  war  and  where 
the  courts  were  open;  ....  that  the  offenders 
should  have  been  prosecuted  according  to  law,  or,  if  their 
offenses  were  not  indictable,  permitted  to  go  free."  Be 
sides  all  this,  Rhodes  gives  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  169  to  p.  172) 
unqualified  commendation  to  Governor  Seymour  for  a 
patriotic  spirit  and  proper  jealousy  for  his  country's 
liberty  shown  in  his  bitter  opposition  to  Lincoln's  usurpa 
tions,  and  shows  how  very  far  Seymour's  resentment  to- 

6"  Wrong"  it  was,  doubtless;  but  was  it  inexpedient  or  unnecessary?  Without 
it  would  the  people  of  the  States  called  "loyal"  have  continued  the  war  or  re- 
elected  Lincoln? 

8 


114  The  Real  Lincoln. 

wards  Lincoln  went.  Rhodes  even  calls  Lincoln  a  "  tyrant." 
Of  a  proclamation  issued  two  days  after  the  edict  of  Eman 
cipation  he  says  (p.  169,  et  seq.),  after  giving  particulars 
of  it,  that  it  "applied  to  the  whole  country,  .  .  .  . 
and  was  the  assumption  of  the  authority  exercised  by  an 
absolute  monarch."  And  he  quotes  Joel  Parker,  Pro 
fessor  of  Law  in  Harvard,  as  follows:  "Do  you  not  per 
ceive  that  the  President  is  not  only  an  absolute  monarch, 
but  that  his  is  an  absolutely  uncontrollable  government, 
a  perfect  military  despotism?"  And  Rhodes  says  (p.  170) 
of  Curtis,  a  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  that  "he  now 
published  a  pamphlet,  entitled  Executive  Power,  which 
called  Lincoln  "a  usurper"  and  his  power  "a  military 
despotism."  And  Rhodes  adds,  ....  "Indeed  it 
is  not  surprising  that  it  gave  currency  to  an  opinion  that 
he  intended  to  suppress  free  discussion  of  political  events." 

Appleton's  Annual  Cyclopedia  for  1864,  page  307,  calls 
the  Wade-Davis  Manifesto,  which  will  be  described  below, 
"  a  bitter  attack  on  the  President,  remarkable  as  coming 
from  the  leaders  of  his  own  party,"  and  this  Rhodes  quotes 
(p.  487)  without  dissent,  and  even  gives  the  following  com 
mendation  of  Wade  and  Davis  (p.  229):  "Their  criticism 
of  the  Executive  for  suspending  the  privilege  of  the  writ 
of  habeas  corpus,  for  arbitrary  arrests,  for  the  abridgment 
of  the  freedom  of  speech  and  of  writing,  were  justly  taken 
and  undoubtedly  had  influence  for  good  on  the  legislation 
of  the  session.  This  commendation,  like  what  he  gives 
Seymour  and  others  for  bitter  opposition  to  Lincoln  and 
denunciation  of  him,  sounds  strange,  coming  from  Rhodes. 

Rhodes  twice  concedes  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  169,  et  seq.,  and 
p.  556,  et  seq.)  Lincoln's  full  responsibility  for  the  despotic 
acts  of  his  ministers,  Stan  ton  and  Seward,  but  appends 


The  Real  Lincoln.  115 

to  the  latter  the  following — a  feeble  defense  indeed:  "It 
is  not  probable  that  Lincoln  of  his  own  motion  would  have 
ordered  them,  for  although  at  times  he  acted  without  war 
rant  of  the  Constitution,  he  had  a  profound  preference 

for  it It  was  undoubtedly  disagreeable  to 

him  to  be  called  by  Vallandigham  'the  Caesar  of  the  Ameri 
can  Republic/  and  by  Wendell  Phillips  'a  more  unlimited 
despot  than  the  world  knows  this  side  of  China,'  and  to 
be  aware  that  Senator  Grimes  described  a  call  at  the  White 
House,  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  the  President,  as  'an 
attempt  to  approach  the  footstool  of  the  power  enthroned 
at  the  other  end  of  the  Avenue.' " 

The  above  follows  his  account  of  very  notable  arrests 
(p.  555  to  p.  557)  arbitrarily  made  in  Northern  States. 

William  A.  Dunning,  President  of  Columbia  University, 
says  in  his  Essays  on  the  Civil  War,  dated  1898  (p.  39,  et 
seq.),  that  President  Lincoln's  Proclamation  of  September 
24,  1862,  was  "a  perfect  plot  for  a  military  despotism," 
and  that  "  the  very  demonstrative  resistance  of  the  people 
to  the  Government  only  made  the  military  arrests  more 
frequent";  ....  that  (p.  24,  et  seq.)  "Mr.  Lincoln 
asserted  the  existence  of  martial  law  ....  through 
out  the  United  States."  He  says  "thousands  were  so 
dealt  with,"  ....  and  that  (p.  46)  "the  records  of 
the  War  Department  contain  the  reports  of  hundreds  of 
trials  by  military  commissions  with  punishments  varying 
from  light  fines  to  banishment  and  death."  Lalor's 
Encyclopedia  says  the  records  of  the  Provost  Marshal's 
office  in  Washington  show  thirty-eight  thousand  political 
prisoners,  but  Rhodes  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  230,  et  seq.)  says  the  num 
ber  is  exaggerated.  Holland's  Lincoln  shows  (p.  476,  et  seq.) 
that  when  Lincoln  killed,  by  "pocketing"  it,  a  bill  for  the 


116  The  Real  Lincoln. 

reconstruction  of  the  Union  which  Congress  had  just  passed, 
Ben  Wade  and  Winter  Davis,  aided  by  Greeley,  published 
in  Greeley 's  Tribune  of  August  5th  "a  bitter  manifesto." 
It  is  charged  that  the  President,  by  preventing  this  bill  from 
becoming  a  law  "  holds  the  electoral  vote  of  the  rebel  States 
at  the  discretion  of  his  personal  ambition,"  and  that  "a 
more  studied  outrage  on  the  authority  of  the  people  has  never 
been  perpetrated."  A.  K.  McClure's  Lincoln  and.  Men  of 
the  War  Time  gives  the  same  account.  See,  too,  Schouler's 
History  of  the  United  States,  p.  469.  Channing  says  (Short 
History  of  the  United  States,  p.  331,  et  seq.):  "Many  persons 
in  the  North  thought  that  the  Southerners  had  a  perfect 
right  to  secede  if  they  wished.  Some  of  these  persons  sympa 
thized  so  thoroughly  with  the  Southerners  that  they  gave 
them  important  information  and  did  all  they  could  to  hinder 
Lincoln  in  conquering  the  South.  It  was  hard  to  prove 
anything  against  these  Southern  sympathizers,  but  it  was 
dangerous  to  leave  them  at  liberty.  So  Lincoln  ordered 
many  of  them  to  be  arrested  and  locked  up.  Lincoln  now 
suspended  the  operation  of  the  writ  of  Jiabeas  corpus.  This 
action  angered  many  persons  who  were  quite  willing  that 
the  Southerners  should  be  compelled  to  obey  the  law,  but 
did  not  like  to  have  their  neighbors  arrested  and  locked  up 
without  trial."  And  Channing  goes  on  (p.  332),  "The  draft 
was  bitterly  resisted  in  some  parts  of  the  North,  especially 
in  New  York  city." 


CHAPTER  XYI. 

Outline  of  the  Despotism. 

r  I  THE  opposition  to  coercion  and  to  emancipation  that 
-*-  has  been  shown  so  strong  in  the  people  of  the  States 
called  "loyal,"  in  their  Congress,  in  their  regular 
army,  and  in  their  volunteer  army,  was  all  included  under 
one  charge  of  "disloyalty"  and  suppressed  by  the  usurpa 
tion  of  despotic  power. 

How  fully  Lincoln  used  every  method  of  a  military 
despot  in  suppressing  it  is  shown  by  examination  of  a  single 
chapter  of  Bancroft's  Life  of  Wittam  H.  Seward.  The 
following  extracts  from  it  need  little  comment.  Lest  any 
reader  should  suppose  that  Bancroft  means  to  expose 
or  arraign  Lincoln  or  his  agent,  Seward,  for  the  arbitrary 
arrests  and  imprisonments  that  he  describes,  be  it  under 
stood  that  he  does  no  more  than  mildly  concede  that 
Se ward's  zeal  in  a  good  cause  betrayed  him  into  undue 
severities  in  the  "loyal"  States.  He  says  expressly  (Vol. 
II.,  p.  276,  et  seq.):  "For  the  general  policy  as  practiced 
in  the  Border  States  there  is  no  ....  occasion  to 

apologize But  there  were  some  serious  abuses 

of  this  arbitrary  power  in  the  far  Northern  States."  Again 
he  says  (Vol.  III.,  p.  254)  of  Seward,  "Probably  the  detec 
tion  of  political  offenders  and  the  control  of  political  pris 
oners  were  the  most  distracting  of  all  his  cares."  His 
mode  of  arrest  and  confinement  of  the  prisoners  is  described 
as  follows  (Vol.  II.,  p.  259) :  "  Some  of  the  features  bore 
a  striking  resemblance  to  the  most  odious  institutions  of 

(117) 


118  The  Real  Lincoln. 

the  ancient  regime  in  France — the  Bastile  and  the  Lettres 
de  Cachet."  "  The  person  'suspected'  of  disloyalty  was 
often  seized  at  night,  borne  off  to  the  nearest  fort,  deprived 
of  his  valuables,  locked  up  in  a  casemate,  ....  gen 
erally  crowded  with  men  who  had  similar  experiences.  .  . 
If  he  wished  to  send  for  friends  or  an  attorney,  he 
was  informed  that  the  rules  forbade  visitors,  that  attor 
neys  were  entirely  excluded,  and  that  the  prisoner  who 
sought  their  aid  would  greatly  prejudice  his  case.1  An 
appeal  to  Seward  was  the  only  recourse — a  second,  third, 
and  fourth,  all  alike  useless.  The  Secretary  was  calm  in 
the  belief  that  the  man  was  a  plotter  and  would  do  no 
harm  while  he  remained  in  custody."  It  was  found  best 
(Vol.  II.,  p.  262)  "to  take  prominent  men  far  from  their 

homes  and  sympathizers The  suspected  men, 

notably  Marylanders,   were   carried   to   Fort  Warren   or 

other  remote  places In  most  cases  from  one 

to  three  months  elapsed  before  definite  action  was  taken 

by  the  department If  the  arrest  had  been 

made  without  due  cause,  no  oaths  or  conditions  of  release 
were  required. "  ....  So,  too,  "  if  the  alleged  offence 
had  been  too  highly  colored  by  a  revengeful  enemy."2  See 
particulars  of  several  cases  (Vol.  II.,  pp.  264  to  276)  given 

Secretary  Seward  wrote  to  Keys,  U.  S.  Marshal,  "you  will  therefore  please 
inform  all  the  prisoners  at  Fort  Warren  .  .  .  that  if  the  fact  comes  to  the 
knowledge  of  this  department  that  any  prisoner  has  agreed  to  pay  to  any  attor 
ney  a  sum  of  money,  or  to  give  him  anything  of  value  as  a  consideration  for 
interceding  for  the  release  of  such  prisoner,  that  fact  will  be  held  as  an  additional 
reason  for  continuing  the  confinement  of  such  persons.  War  of  the  Rebellion; 
Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies,  Series  II.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  614. 

2In  the  War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate 
Armies,  Series  I.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  599,  Gen.  John  A.  Dix  cautions  Secretary  Seward  as 
follows:  "I  arrested  in  an  interior  county  and  brought  to  this  city  two  men  charged 
with  open  acts  of  hostility  to  the  government  on  testimony  vouched  by  the  United 
States  Marshal,  yet  they  turned  out  to  be  two  of  the  most  consistent  and  active 
Union  men  in  the  neighborhood." 


The  Real  Lincoln.  119 

by  Bancroft,  and  especially  one  where  the  action  was 
aimed  at  Ex-President  Pierce,  "who  believed/'  Bancroft 
records,  "  the  South  to  be  the  aggrieved  party."  Bancroft 
winds  up  this  with  the  comprehensive  statement  that 
"not  one  of  the  political  prisoners3  was  brought  to  trial. 
As  a  rule  they  were  not  even  told  why  they  were  arrested. 
When  the  pressure  for  judicial  procedure  or  for  a  candid 
discussion  of  the  case  became  too  strong  to  be  resisted  on 
plausible  grounds,  the  alleged  offender  wras  released."4 

Bancroft  says  further  (Vol.  11.,  p.  276,  et  seq.},  "The 
least  excusable  feature  was  the  treatment  of  the  prisoners. 
Month  after  month  many  of  them  were  crowded  together 
in  gloomy  and  damp  casemates,  where  even  the  dangerous 
'pirates'  captured  on  privateers  and  soldiers  taken  in 
battle  ought  not  to  have  remained  long.  Many  had  com 
mitted  no  overt  act.  There  were  among  them  editors 
and  political  leaders  of  character  and  honor,  but  whose 
freedom  would  be  prejudicial  to  the  prosecution  of  the 
war  (Vol.  II.,  p.  278).  It  was  inevitable  that  innocent 
men  should  be  caught  in  the  dangerous  machinery.  It 
afforded  rare  opportunities  for  the  gratification  of  personal 
enmities  and  the  display  of  power  on  the  part  of  United 
States  marshals  and  military  officers It  hap 
pened  more  than  once  that  men  languished  in  prisons  for 
weeks  before  any  one  at  the  department  even  heard  their 
names." 

Justice  to  the  great  States  that  were  reduced  to  sub- 


3Vol.  II.,  p.  276.     He  means  of  those  confined  by  Seward. 

4It  is  notable  that  Bancroft,  a  man  of  our  own  day — he  lectured  to  the  students 
of  the  Hopkins  University  in  1901 — records  with  complacency,  or  at  least  without 
apology,  such  despotic  treatment  of  American  citizens.  It  is,  however,  consistent 
with  his  calling  the  ships  of  war  and  the  officers  of  the  Confederate  Navy  "priva 
teers"  and  "pirates,"  as  elsewhere  quoted.  Semmes  and  Arthur  Sinclair  have 
told  how  this  navy  swept  from  the  face  of  the  waters  the  whole  merchant  marine 
of  the  United  States  with  the  sympathy  of  nearly  all  Christendom. 


120  The  Real  Lincoln. 

mission  makes  it  necessary  to  give  a  few  of  the  cruelties — 
the  barbarities — suffered  by  many  of  the  imprisoned.  The 
Hon.  Charles  James  Faulkner,  who  enjoyed  very  high 
honors  from  Virginia  before  and  after  the  war,  came  back 
from  his  duties  as  Minister  to  Paris,  was  arrested  on  landing 
in  New  York  and  imprisoned  in  Fort  Lafayette,  whence 
he  wrote  the  Secretary  of  State,5  September  13th,  1861,  "A 
small  casemate  of  this  frontier  and  isolated  fortification 
accommodates  eight  persons  including  myself.  Through 
three  small  apertures  a  dim  and  imperfect  light  is  admitted 
—not  sufficient  to  enable  the  occupants  to  read  or  write 
unless  when  the  door  is  open,  which  can  only  be  when 
allowed  by  the  state  of  the  weather  and  the  regulations 

of  the  fort In  another  casemate  near  me  are 

twenty-four  prisoners  in  chains." 

This  would  have  been  extraordinary  cruelty  if  the  pris 
oners  had  been  under  conviction  of  crimes,  but  the  same 
volume,  at  pp.  411  to  413,  describes  far  more  barbarous 
treatment  of  the  gallant  Colonel  Thomas — known  as 
Zarvona  Thomas. 

Godkin,  of  the  New  York  Nation,  might  well  say,  as  he 
did  in  one  of  his  later  editorials,  "  The  first  real  breach  in 
the  Constitution  was  made  by  the  invention  of  the  war 
power  to  enable  President  Lincoln  to  abolish  slavery.  No 
one  would  now  say  that  this  was  not  at  that  time  necessary, 
but  it  made  it  possible  for  any  President  practically  to 
suspend  the  Constitution  by  getting  up  a  war  anywhere." 

.  .  .  .  Bancroft  gives  various  examples  (p.  235, 
note)  of  the  method  of  arrest — simple  telegrams,  signed 
"Seward,"  "Stanton,"  or  "Richard  H.  Dana"— one  was, 

°War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  II.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  470. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  121 

"Send  Wm.  Paine  to  Fort  Lafayette.  F.  W.  Seward"; 
for  even  a  deputy,  son  of  the  Secretary,  exercised  tremen 
dous  power.  Republicans  were  arrested,  too,  (p.  235). 
Most  notable  of  the  protests  against  the  arrests  was  one 
in  a  special  message  of  Gov.  Curtin,  of  Pennsylvania,  one 
of  the  great  "war-governors,"  attached  to  Lincoln,  and 
from  the  first  a  zealous  supporter  of  the  Emancipation 
Proclamation.  A.  K.  McClure  describes  (Lincoln  and  Men 
of  the  War  Time,  p.  164)  how  he  got  a  man  named  Jere 
McKibben  released  from  quite  causeless  imprisonment  by 
Stanton,  and  adds,  "  I  had  quite  frequently  been  to  Wash 
ington  before  when  arbitrary  and  quite  unjustifiable  arrests 
of  civilians  had  been  made  in  Pennsylvania."  Rhodes  says 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  413,)  "Seward  and 
Stanton  had  caused  many  arrests  with  no  more  formality 
than  a  telegraphic  dispatch." 

The  sacred  right  to  trial,  without  which  all  other  rights 
are  vain,  was  almost  always  denied,  as  elsewhere  shown, 
but  release  was  sometimes  granted  on  singular  conditions, 
as  when6  James  G.  Berdet,  Mayor  of  Washington  city,  "  was 
required  as  a  condition  of  his  discharge  from  Fort  Dela 
ware  to  resign  the  office  of  Mayor."  The  same  volume 
tells  of  the  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  the  editor  of  the 
Republican  Watchman,  of  Greenport,  Long  Island,  and 
(p.  670)  shows  that  his  family  were  supported  by  subscrip 
tions  of  sympathizing  neighbors. 

The  story  is  well  known  that  when  the  English  Minister, 
Lord  Lyons,  called  the  attention  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
Seward,  to  the  bitter  opposition  to  the  war  that  was  show 
ing  itself  everywhere,  Seward  answered  that  with  his  little 

&War  of  the  Rebellion:  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  II.,  Vol.  II.,  pp.  596  to  599. 


122  The  Real  Lincoln. 

bell  he  could  imprison  any  citizen  in  any  State,  and  that 
no  one  but  the  President  could  release  him.  Bancroft 
says  (Vol.  II.,  p.  280):  "If  he  made  this  remark,  it  is  of 
no  special  importance;  it  was  a  fact  that  he  was  almost  as 
free  from  restraint  as  a  dictator  or  a  sultan." 

The  methods  of  the  State  Department  that  are  described 
above  did  not  surpass  in  any  respect  those  of  the  War 
Department.  The  latter  even  created  new  offenses,  ending 
a  list  of  them  with,7  "any  other  disloyal  practice,"  and  it 
authorized  and  directed  "arrest  and  imprisonment  in  the 
discretion  of  even  chiefs  of  police  of  any  town  or  district." 

7War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series   III.,  Vol.   II.,   p.    321. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 

General  Opposition  and  Resistance  to  Coer 
cion  and  to  Emancipation. 

THE  advocacy  of  views  strongly  opposed  to  the  war  and 
to  emancipation  did  not  cease  in  the  North  and  the 
West  when  the  war  began,  dangerous  as  it  soon 
became  to  advocate  them.  Imprisonment  without  trial, 
trials  by  court-martial,  sentences  to  confinement  in  prisons 
or  fortresses  remote  from  home  and  friends,  did  reduce 
at  last  to  silence  all  but  the  boldest — even  Missourians, 
Kentuckians,  and  Marylanders;  and  similar  methods  of 
repression  were  used  in  States  remotest  from  the  scenes 
of  the  war.  In  this  chapter  an  account  will  be  given  of 
the  general  resistance  throughout  the  North  and  West, 
and  succeeding  chapters  will  describe  the  resistance  in 
the  separate  States  and  groups  of  States,  and  the  methods 
by  which  resistance  was  suppressed, 

Nicolay  and  Hay  give  (Vol.  VIII.,  p.  29,  et  seq.)  a  full 
account  of  the  "disloyalty"  in  the  North  and  West,  and 
say,  too  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  234),  that  "in  the  Western  States 
the  words  Democrat  and  Copperhead  became  after  Jan 
uary,  1863,  practically  synonymous,  and  a  cognomen 
applied  as  a  reproach  was  assumed  with  pride.' '  Professor 
Channing,  of  Harvard,  says,1  "In  the  Mississippi  Valley 
hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  either  sympathized  with 
the  slaveholders  or  cared  nothing  about  the  slavery  dis- 

JChanning's  Short  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  314. 

(123) 


124  The  Real  Lincoln. 

pute."  George  S.  Boutwell  says,2  "With  varying  degrees 
of  intensity  the  Democratic  party  of  the  North  sympa 
thized  with  the  South,  and  arraigned  Lincoln  and  the 
Republican  party  for  all  that  the  country  was  called  to 
endure.  During  the  entire  period  of  the  war  New  York, 
Ohio,  and  Illinois  were  doubtful  States,  and  Indiana  was 
kept  in  line  only  by  the  active  and  desperate  fidelity  of 
Oliver  P.  Morton."  Secretary  Welles,  of  Lincoln's  Cabinet, 
says  (Atlantic  Monthly,  Vol.  XVI.,  p.  266):  "The  Demo 
crats  were  in  sympathy  with  the  rebels,  ....  and 
opposed  to  the  war  itself." 

Ridpath  says,3  "  During  this  year  (1863)  the  Administra 
tion  of  President  Lincoln  was  beset  with  many  difficulties. 
.  .  .  .  The  Anti-War  party  of  the  North  had  grown 
more  bold,  and  openly  denounced  the  measures  of  the 
Government In  many  places  the  draft  offi 
cers  were  forcibly  resisted."  ....  The  anti-war 
spirit  in  some  parts  of  the  North  ran  so  high  that  on  the 
19th  of  August  President  Lincoln  issued  a  proclamation 
suspending  the  privileges  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus 
throughout  the  Union." 

Everywhere  there  were  men  who  made  more  or  less  bitter 
protest  or  resistance  against  such  subversion,  by  methods 
known  only  to  the  Sultan  or  the  Czar,  of  what  Americans 
had  been  taught  to  call  the  conditions  of  freedom — a  free 
press,  free  speech,  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and  trial  by 
jury.  In  Cincinnati,  in  Chicago,  in  Boston,  and  elsewhere, 
demonstrations  toward  violent  resistance  very  alarming 
to  the  Administration  at  Washington  were  suppressed 
with  the  strong  hand  before  coming  to  a  head.  Gilmore 

2 Abraham  Lincoln,  Tributes  from  His  Associates,  p.  85,  et  seq. 
^Popular  History  of  the  United  States,  published  in  1883,  p.  522. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  125 

(Personal  Recollections  of  Lincoln,  p.  199)  speaks  of  "the 
wide  Western  conspiracy  so  opportunely  strangled  in 
Chicago/'  and  devotes  a  chapter  to  it. 

When  the  storm  was  rising  there  came  from  the  Demo 
cratic  leaders  in  the  "  loyal "  States  as  distinct  asseverations 
of  the  wrongs  the  South  was  enduring,  as  full  assurances 
that  the  South  had  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  part 
nership,  as  full  denial  of  any  possible  right  in  the  Federal 
Government  to  use  coercion,  as  any  Southern  leader  ever 
set  forth;  with  further  assurances  that  the  Democrats 
of  the  North  and  the  West  would  fight  on  the  Southern 
side  in  any  appeal  to  arms. 

The  extreme  Abolitionists  also  bitterly  opposed  the  war. 
President  Theodore  Roosevelt's  Cromwell  says  (p.  103) 
that  at  the  close  of  the  war  "the  Garrison  ....  or 
disunion  Abolitionists  ....  had  seen  their  cause 
triumph,  not  through,  but  in  spite  of,  their  efforts."  And 
Gorham's  Life  of  Stanlon  (Vol.  I.,  p.  163,  et  seq.)  says, 
"The  Republicans  ....  were  divided  into  two 

classes,  one,  which  desired  separation,  etc.," 

and  (Vol.  I.,  p.  193)  tells  of  "a  new  element,  headed  by 
prominent  Republican  leaders  like  Greeley  and  Chase, 
who  thought  that  a  union  of  non-slaveholding  States 
would  be  preferable  to  any  attempt  to  maintain  by  force 
the  Union  with  the  slaveholding  States."  Observe  how 
exactly  these  conclusions  agreed  with  the  conclusions  to 
which  the  Southern  leaders  had  come. 

A  letter  of  Chase  quoted  in  his  Life  by  Warden  (p.  363, 
et  seq.)  says:  "It  is  precisely  because  they  anticipate 
abolition  as  the  result  that  the  Garrison  Abolitionists 
desire  disunion."  Schouler  says  of  Garrison,  Phillips  and 
their  immediate  followers  (History  of  the  United  States, 


126  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Vol.  VI.,  p.  225),  "They  were  the  avowed  Disunionists on  the 
Northern  side."  ....  Burgess  says  (The  Civil  War 
and  the  Constitution,  Vol.  I.,  p.  148),  "  The  Abolitionist 
wing  of  the  Republican  party  was  never  noted  for  strong 
unionism,"  and  (p.  227)  "  down  to  our  civil  war  the  Aboli 
tionist  preached  destruction  of  the  Union."  Leland  says 
(Lincoln,  p.  199)  about  the  election  of  1864:  "The  ultra 
abolition  adherents  of  General  Fremont  were  willing  to 
see  a  pro-slavery  President — McClellan — elected  rather 
than  Mr.  Lincoln,  so  great  was  their  hatred  of  him  and 

emancipation As  the  election  drew  on,  threats 

and  rumors  of  revolution  in  the  North  were  rife."  Keifer 
says  (his  Slavery  and  Four  Years  of  War,  p.  172,  et  seq.), 
"There  was  also,  though  strangely  inconsistent,  a  very 
considerable  class  of  the  early  Abolitionists  of  the  Gar 
rison-Smith-Phillips  school  who  did  not  support  the  war 
for  the  Union,  but  preferred  the  slaveholding  States  should 
secede."  Channing  says  (Short  History  of  the  United 
States),  "The  Abolitionists  welcomed  the  secession  of  the 
Slave  States." 

In  spite  of  the  support  of  the  war  forced  on  the  Demo 
cracy,  as  above  described,  they  made  a  steady  struggle 
in  the  courts,  in  Congress,  and  in  the  State  governments, 
to  keep  down  the  war  to  something  like  constitutional 
limits  as  far  as  possible,  and  to  such  conditions  as  might 
leave  room  for  reconciliation  in  the  future.  Vallandig- 
ham's  and  Seymour's  conduct,  of  which  particulars  will 
be  given  below,  furnish  examples,  and  General  McClellan 's 
is  another  example.  For  years  no  pains  were  spared  to 
cry  down  General  McClellan  in  vindication  of  Lincoln's 
dealings  with  him,  but  evidence  of  the  truth  has  been  too 
strong.  Even  Nicolay  and  Hay  have  to  concede  to  Me- 


The  Real  Lincoln.  127 

Clellan  the  very  highest  praise  for  pure  patriotism,  and  the 
concessions  have  grown  greater  with  each  succeeding  his 
torian  till  Rhodes,  one  of  the  ablest,  deplores4  the  fact  that 
Lincoln  could  not  see  McClellan  as  we  see  him,  and  that 
Lincoln  deferred  the  capture  of  Richmond  and  the  downfall 
of  the  Confederacy  for  two  years  by  removing  McClellan 
from  command  of  the  army.  Ropes  passes  hardly  less 
severe  censure  on  Lincoln5  for  his  dealings  with  McClellan, 
and  Rhodes  and  Ropes  are  very  hostile  critics  of  McClellan.6 

Tn  this  connection  there  are  some  unconscious  betrayals 
of  the  real  estimate  of  Lincoln  that  was  entertained  by 
a  number  of  his  eminent  eulogists.  Eight  of  them7 
have  thought  it  worth  while,  if  not  necessary,  to  declare 
very  expressly  their  belief  that  Lincoln  did  not  purposely 
betray  General  McClellan  and  his  army  in  the  Seven-Days' 
battles  before  Richmond.  McClellan,  in  his  celebrated 
dispatch  after  his  retreat,  reproached  Stanton  with  this 
atrocious  crime,  and  so  worded  the  dispatch  that  he  im 
puted  the  same  guilt  to  Lincoln. 

A.  K.  McClure8  and  Nicolay  and  Hay  (Abraham  Lin 
coln,  p.  441,  et  seq.,  and  p.  451)  deplore  that  McClellan 
should  have  believed  Lincoln  capable  of  it,  both  conceding 

^History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  109  and  p.  106,  et  seq. 

*Story  of  the  Civil  War,  Part  II.,  p.  132,  et  seq.,  p.  442,  et  seq.,  p.  473,  et  seq. 

9See  John  Fiske's  Mississippi  Valley  in  the  Civil  War,  p.  148,  et  seq.,  and  his 
quotation  of  censure  of  Lincoln  to  the  same  effect  from  the  Count  of  Paris.  See 
Ida  Tarbell  in  McClure's  Magazine  for  May,  1899,  pp.  192  to  199.  et  seq.,  and  see 
Henderson's  Life  of  Stonewall  Jackson,  Vol.  I.,  p.  307. 

7The  eight  are  the  following:  A.  K.  McClure,  see  Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War 
Time,  p.  102,  p.  207,  et  seq.;  Dr.  Holland,  see  Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  753,  et  seq.;  John 
Coddman  Ropes,  see  Story  of  the  Civil  War,  Part  IT.,  p.  116,  p.  171,  p.  230,  p.  442, 
et  seq.,  and  p.  473,  et  seq.;  Rhodes,  see  History  of  the.  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  50. 
et  seq.;  Hon.  George  S.  Boutwell,  see  Tributes  from  His  Associates,  p.  69;  Schouler, 
see  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  193,  et  seq.;  Henderson,  see  Life  of  Stonewall 
Jackson,  Vol.  I.,  p.  499;  Nicolay  and  Hay,  see  Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  189, 
et  seq.,  p.  441,  et  seq.,  and  p.  451. 

^Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p.  102. 


128  The  Real  Lincoln. 

to  McClellan  the  most  exalted  character,  ability,  and  pat 
riotism. 

Of  Lincoln's  dealings  with  McClellan,  A.  K.  McClure 
says,9  "Many  charged,  as  did  McClellan,  that  he  had  been 
with  his  army,  deliberately  betrayed  by  the  Secretary  of 
War,  if  not  by  Lincoln."  A  gentleman  who  commanded 
a  division  in  the  Union  army  in  one  of  the  great  battles 
said  to  the  author  of  this  book,  "If  McClellan  had  taken 
Richmond,  it  would  have  been  an  end  of  the  Republican 
party." 

Dr.  Burgess,  Professor  of  Political  Science  in  the  Colum 
bia  University,  closes  the  treatment  of  the  subject  of 
General  McClellan's  military  career  with  the  following 
very  curious  and  very  suggestive  words:10  "Whether  a 
crushing  victory  over  the  Confederates,  ending  at  once 
the  rebellion  before  slavery  was  destroyed,  was  wanted 
by  all  of  those  who  composed  the  Washington  Government, 
may  well  be  suspected.  And  it  is  very  nearly  certain  that 
there  were  some  wrho  would  have  preferred  defeat  to  such 
a  victory  with  McClellan  in  command.  It  was  a  dark, 
mysterious,  uncanny  thing,  which  the  historian  does  not 
need  to  touch  and  prefers  not  to  touch." 

Those  who  have  labored  most  to  discredit  McClellan 
as  a  general  have  been  obliged  to  concede  to  him  some 
of  the  noblest  qualities  and  highest  gifts — perfect  purity, 
honor  and  patriotism,  unsurpassed  skill  in  army  organiza 
tion,  and  the  power  to  win  and  to  keep,  even  when  consigned 
by  the  President  to  disgrace,  the  ardent  love  and  admira 
tion  of  his  soldiers.  It  is  full  time  that  some  one  who  loves 


^Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  pp.  208,  248;  see,  too.  Nicolay  and  Hays' 
Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  VI.,  p.   189,  et  seq. 

l°The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  published  lately. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  129 

his  good  name,  or  some  one  who  loves  justice,  should 
"touch"  and  reveal  to  the  world  "the  dark,  mysterious, 
uncanny  thing"  that  Dr.  Burgess  points  at. 

When  Lincoln  refused  to  hear  at  all,  or  to  see  the  South 
ern  Commissioners — Clement  Clay  and  James  P.  Holcombe 
—unless  they  could  show  "  written  authority  from  Jefferson 
Davis"  to  make  unconditional  surrender,  Greeley,  who 
had  procured  their  coming  to  negotiate  a  cessation  of  the 
war,  protested  against  Lincoln's  action  as  follows  in  a  letter 
written  him  and  published  in  the  Tribune  in  July,  1864 
(Holland's  Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  478):  "Our  bleeding, 
bankrupt,  almost  dying  country  longs  for  peace,  shudders 
at  the  prospect  of  fresh  conscriptions,  of  further  wholesale 
devastation,  and  new  rivers  of  human  blood;  and  there 
is  a  widespread  conviction  that  the  Government  and  its 
supporters  are  not  anxious  for  peace  and  do  not  improve 
proffered  opportunities  to  achieve  it."  Greeley  further 
intimates  (p.  482)  the  possibility  of  a  Northern  insurrec 
tion.  Charles  A.  Dana,  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  War,  says, 
in  his  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War,  that  in  April,  1862, 
Greeley  "was  for  peace."  Nicolay  and  Hay  (Abraham 
Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  pp.  184  to  200)  describe  the  transaction 
above  as  "Horace  Greeley's  Peace  Mission."  The  Life 
of  Hamlin,  p.  437,  says  Greeley  called  the  above  letter 
"the  prayer  of  twenty  millions  of  people." 

Gilmore  (Personal  Recollections  of  Lincoln,  p.  231) 
shows  the  bitterest  reprobation  on  his  own  part  of  the 
South  and  of  its  cause,  but  he  records  the  following  as 
"the  almost  unanimous  feeling  of  the  Northern  people — 
of  Radical  Republicans  as  well  as  honest  Democrats — 
during  the  winter  of  1863  and  the  spring  of  1864":  "There 
9 


130  The  Real  Lincoln. 

must  be  some  way  to  end  this  wretched  business.  Tell 
us  what  it  is,  and  be  it  armistice,  concession,  compromise, 
anything  whatever,  we  will  welcome  it,  so  long  as  it  ter 
minates  this  suicidal  war." 

Rhodes  quotes  (History  of  the  United  States)  General 
Hooker's  testimony  to  a  committee  of  the  House,  as 
follows :  "  So  anxious  were  parents,  wives,  brothers,  and 
sisters  to  relieve  their  kindred,  that  they  filled  the  express 
trains  to  the  army  with  packages  of  citizen's  clothing  to 
assist  them  in  escaping  from  the  service."  Hooker  was  tes 
tifying  as  Commander  in  Chief  of  the  Army  of  the  Potomac. 

General  U.  S.  Grant  complains11  "that  General  Lee's 
praise  was  sounded  through  the  entire  North  after  every 
action";  ....  that  he  was  "extolled  by  the  entire 
press  of  the  South  after  every  engagement  and  by  a  portion 
of  the  press  of  the  North  with  equal  vehemence ;  .  .  . 
that  there  were  good  and  true  officers  who  believed  now 
that  the  Army  of  Northern  Virginia  was  superior  to  the 
Army  of  the  Potomac,  man  to  man."  James  Russell 
Lowell  wrote  Motley,  July  18th,  1864,  "The  apathy  and 
discouragement  throughout  the  country  took  the  shape 
of  a  yearning  for  peace."  General  Ben.  F.  Butler  pictures 
the  public  mind  (Butler's  Book,  p.  576,  et  seq.)  in  such  words 
as  follow:  ....  "There  being  several  parties  who 
wanted  a  dictator,  ....  the  property  men  of  the 
country,  who  thought  that  the  expenses  of  the  war  were 
so  enormous  that  it  should  be  immediately  ended  by 
negotiation,  ....  the  New  York  Times,  in  an  elab 
orate  editorial,  proposed  that  George  Law,  an  extensive 
manufacturer  of  New  York,  should  be  made  dicta 
tor." 


"Personal  Memoirs  of  U.  S.  Grant,  New  York,  1886,  pp.  291,  292. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  131 

Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p. 
222)  that  "Greeley  in  his  great  journal  (New  York  Tri 
bune)  advocated  the  mediation  of  a  European  power  be 
tween  the  North  and  the  South";  that  he  corresponded 
with  Vallandigham  and  the  French  Minister,  Mercier, 
"setting  forth  that  the  people  would  welcome  a  foreign 
mediation  that  terminated  the  war";  and  Rhodes  adds, 
in  a  note,  the  following,  from  John  Sherman's  Letters,  that 
Greeley  said  to  Raymond,  editor  of  New  York  Times: 
"I  mean  to  carry  out  this  policy  and  bring  the  war  to  a 
close.  You'll  see  that  I'll  drive  Lincoln  to  it";  which 
shows  his  opinion  as  to  Lincoln's  purposes. 

Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p. 
492),  "When  Lincoln  visited  Grant's  army,  June  21st, 
1864,  ....  gloom  had  settled  down  on  the  Army 
of  the  Potomac  and  was  soon  spread  over  the  country.  .  . 
The  entire  army  seemed  demoralized."  And  Rhodes 
quotes  Joseph  Medill's  letter  to  Colfax,  "Sometimes  I 
think  nothing  is  left  now  but  to  fight  for  a  boundary." 
Again  Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  506),  "July  19th,  1864,  Halleck  wrote  Grant:  'We  are 
now  receiving  one-half  as  many  as  we  are  discharging. 
Volunteering  has  virtually  ceased'  " ;  and  he  says  that  about 
the  middle  of  June,  1864,  after  Grant  crossed  the  James 
river  and  was  attacking  Petersburg  (p.  490,  et  seq.),  "Re 
inforcements  were  constantly  sent  to  Grant,  but  they  were 
for  the  most  part  mercenaries,  many  of  whom  were  dis 
eased,  immoral,  or  cowardly.  Such  men  were  now  in 
too  large  a  proportion  to  insure  efficient  work." 

Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  236, 
et  seq.),  to  justify  the  conscription  act  of  Congress  that 
was  approved  March  3rd,  1863,  "  volunteering  had  prac- 


132  The  Real  Lincoln. 

tically  ceased/'  and  he  uses  just  the  same  words  on  p. 
330,  adding  "Only  a  pretty  vigorous  conscription  could 
furnish  the  soldiers  needed." 

Rhodes  quotes  (Vol.  III.,  p.  486,  el  seq.)  a  letter  to  Chase 
from  Richard  Smith,  editor  of  the  Cincinnati  Gazette,  which 
tells  of  "sober  citizens  ....  trampling  under  foot 
the  portrait  of  the  President;  ....  burning  the 
President  in  effigy ;  .  .  .  .  low  murrnurings  favorable 
to  a  Western  Confederacy;  ....  sudden  check  to 
enlistments;  ....  rejection  of  treasury  notes  by 
German  citizens " 

Bancroft  (Life  of  Seward,  Vol.  II.,  p.  407)  says  of  the 
fall  of  Atlanta,  that  it  was  as  unwelcome  to  the  Demo 
crats  as  an  earthquake. 

The  attitude  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  to 
wards  coercion  and  emancipation  is  illustrated  by  the 
following:  Allen's  Life  of  Phillips  Brooks,  says  (Vol.  I., 
p.  425),  .  .  .  .  "Its  membership  was  to  a  large  ex 
tent  in  the  Democratic  party,  with  whom  the  question 
of  States'  Rights  was  the  chief  political  issue  involved  in  the 
war."  The  Convention  of  Western  New  York,  seeking 
exemption  from  draft  for  its  clergy,  found  no  better  evi 
dence  of  the  Church's  "loyalty"  to  urge  than  is  in  the 
following  words  :12  "  Appealing  to  our  liturgy  and  practice 
in  proof  of  our  loyalty  to  our  Government  on  the  broad  prin 
ciple  of  Christian  truth,  praying  constantly  in  our  public 
worship  for  yourself" — they  were  addressing  the  Presi 
dent — "and  all  in  authority,  and  deprecating  all  sedition, 
privy  conspiracy,  and  rebellion."  Resolutions  known  as 
the  " Bruno t  resolutions"  were  adopted  by  the  General 

l2War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial    Number    125,    p.    694. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  133 

Convention  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  1862. 
The  New  York  Nation,  of  April  llth,  1891,  says  of  them, 
"Mild  as  the  resolutions  were,  they  reached  the  highest 
point  of  loyalty  that  the  Episcopal  Church  attained." 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

Despotism  in  Maryland. 

inAMILIARITY  has  made  our  ears  very  dull  to  facts 
that  once  would  have  set  the  country's  heart  aflame 
with  patriotic  wrath — of  newspapers  suppressed,  a 
censored  press,  the  Great  Writ  suspended.  It  may  profit 
our  old  men  to  recall  and  oar  young  men  to  learn  accurately 
how  such  things  worked  when  applied  in  Baltimore  and  Mary 
land.  Dr.  Holland  says  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  296)  that  in 
Maryland,  "out  of  92,000  votes  cast  at  the  presidential 
election  of  1860,  only  a  little  more  than  2,000  had  been  cast 
for  Mr.  Lincoln The  sympathies  of  four  per 
sons  in  every  five  were  with  the  rebellion." 

General  Butler  sets  forth  that  with  the  force  organized 
already  at  Charleston,  South  Carolina,  and  the  welcome  that 
awaited  them  in  Virginia  arid  Maryland,  success  would  have 
been  easy  for  the  Confederate  Government  at  Montgomery, 
Alabama,  and  that  (Butler's  Book,  p.  220)  "  the  capture  and 
occupation  of  Washington  would  have  almost  insured  the 
Confederacy  at  once  a  place  by  recognition  as  a  power 
among  the  nations  of  the  earth";  and  that  (pp.  19-22)  Mary 
land  undoubtedly  would  have  hastened  to  join  the  Con 
federacy  in  such  a  contingency.  That  would  have  trans 
ferred  the  line  of  battle  from  the  Potomac  to  the  Susque- 
hanna.  Very  probably  Delaware  would  have  in  that  event 
joined  the  Confederacy,  or  at  least  have  remained  neutral, 
as  her  leading  statesman,  Senator  Bayard,  said  that  if  the 
war  could  not  be  averted,  and  if  his  State  preferred  war  to 

(134) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  135 

the  peaceful  separation  of  the  States,  he  would  cheerfully 
and  gladly  resign  his  seat  in  the  Senate." 

Schouler  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  47,  et 
seq.)  describes  how  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler,  13th  May,  1861, 
"made  a  sudden  entry  into  Baltimore"  with  his  troops- 
proceeded  to  make  "vindictive  civil  arrests,"  and  was  re 
placed  by  General  Scott — how  Scott  deputed  "  the  high  and 
delicate  trust  of  suspending  habeas  corpus"  to  Cadwalader, 
a  Pennsylvania  General  of  Militia.  He  says,  "In  vain  did 
Chief  Justice  Taney  record  his  protest  against  such  suspen 
sion,"  and  tells  how  General  Banks,  successor  to  Cadwalader, 
"pursued,  by  orders  from  Washington,  the  same  stern  mili 
tary  course."  He  broke  up  the  Baltimore  Police  Board, 
whose  designs  were  believed  disloyal.  He  prevented  the 
Legislature  from  meeting  once  more  in  September,  by  boldly 
arresting  its  disunion  members  and  preventing  a  quorum.1 

The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  Series  1,  Vol.  V.,  pp.  193-7, 
gives  as  follows  orders  of  Cameron,  Secretary  of  War,  to 
Gen.  N.  P.  Banks,  September  11,  1861:  "The  passage  of 
any  act  of  secession  by  the  Legislature  of  Maryland  must  be 
prevented.  If  necessary  all  or  any  part  of  the  members 
must  be  arrested."  Letters  of  Allen  Pinkerton  and  of  Gen 
erals  John  E.  Wool,  John  A.  Dix,  and  N.  P.  Banks,  report 
with  enthusiasm  the  arrest,  by  use  of  soldiers  from  New 
York,  and  the  close  confinement  of  members  of  Congress, 
officers  of  the  Baltimore  city  government,  and  members 
of  the  Legislature,  among  whom  are  named  Henry  May, 
Mayor  George  William  Brown,  S.  Teakle  Wallis,  Henry  M. 

1Russell's  My  Diary  (p.  198)  mentions  the  news  that  twenty-two  "members 
of  the  Maryland  Legislature  have  been  seized  by  the  Federal  authorities."  This 
is  of  date  September  11,  1861.  See  Dunning's  Essays  on  the  Civil  War,  &c.,  pp. 
19,  21,  et  seq. 


136  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Warfield,  Charles  H.  Pitts,  Ross  Winans,  John  Hanson, 
Thomas,  R.  C.  McCubbin,  and  F.  Key  Howard. 

Rhodes  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  553, 
et  seq.)  of  these  same  occurrences,  "  Under  this  order  General 
Dix  apprehended  ten  members-elect  of  the  Legislature,  the 
Mayor  of  Baltimore,  a  congressman,  and  two  editors ;  and  at 
Frederick  City,  the  meeting-place  of  the  Legislature,  General 
Banks  laid  hold  of  nine  secession  members.  These  men  were 
subsequently  confined  in  Fort  Lafayette,  New  York,  and  in 
Fort  Warren,  Boston,  where  other  state-prisoners,  arrested 
in  Kentucky  and  Missouri,  were  also  incarcerated.  Rhodes 
concedes  that  these  were  "infractions  of  the  Constitution/' 
but  tries  to  justify  it  all.  Leland  is  more  frank,  both  in 
clearly  conceding  it  was  Lincoln's  doing  and  in  justifying 
it,  as  follows  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  132) :  "  But  he  could  be 
bold  enough  to  sail  closely  enough  to  the  law  when  justice 
demanded  it.  In  September,  1861,  the  rebels  in  Maryland 
came  near  procuring  the  passage  of  an  act  of  secession  in 
the  Legislature  of  that  State.  General  McClellan  was 
promptly  ordered  to  prevent  this  by  the  arrest  of  the  treason 
able  legislators,  and  the  State  was  saved  from  civil  war. 
Raymond  also  tells  (Life  and  State  Papers  of  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  p.  4)  of  the  arrest  of  nine  members  of  the  Maryland 
Legislature,  and  gives  (p.  5)  the  President's  statement  about 
arrests  and  (pp.  7,  8,  and  10)  his  suspension  of  the  writ  and 
his  system  of  provost  marshals  that  enabled  him  to  reach 
every  part  of  the  country. 

Schouler,  after  presenting  the  facts  in  like  manner  as  the 
rest,  makes  the  following  remarkable  presentation  of  the 
consequences:  "But  the  secession  spirit  of  Maryland  waned 
speedily,  as  the  popular  vote  for  Congress  on  the  13th  June 


The  Real  Lincoln.  137 

first  indicated,  and  the  Star-Spangled-Banner  State  could 
not  be  seduced  by  lyric  or  artful  flattery  from  her  national 
allegiance In  November  there  was  a  newly- 
chosen  Legislature,  "loyal  in  its  composition/'  and  Gover 
nor  Hicks,  "no  longer  wavering,  announced  with  emphasis 
that  Maryland  had  no  sympathy  with  rebellion,  but  desired 
to  do  her  full  share  in  the  duty  of  suppressing  it."  Schouler 
might  have  found  a  rhetorical  designation  for  Maryland 
better  suited  to  the  occasion  than  the  "  Star-Spangled-Ban 
ner  State."  The  grandson  of  the  author  of  the  Star-Spangled 
Banner,  Francis  Key  Howard,  editor  of  the  Exchange  News 
paper  of  Baltimore,  had  been  arrested  on  the  morning  of 
the  13th  of  September,  1861,  about  1  o'clock,  by  order  of 
General  Banks,  and  taken  to  Fort  McHenry.  He  says 
(Fourteen  Months  in  American  Bastiles,  p.  9):  "When  I 
looked  out  in  the  morning,  I  could  not  help  being  struck 
by  an  odd  and  not  pleasant  coincidence.  On  that  day  forty- 
seven  years  before  my  grandfather,  Mr.  F.  S.  Key,  then 
prisoner  on  a  British  ship,  had  witnessed  the  bombardment 
of  Fort  McHenry.  When  on  the  following  morning  the 
hostile  fleet  drew  off,  defeated,  he  wrote  the  song  so  long 
popular  throughout  the  country,  the  Star-Spangled  Banner. 
As  I  stood  upon  the  very  scene  of  that  conflict,  I  could  not 
but  contrast  my  position  with  his,  forty-seven  years  before. 
The  flag  which  he  had  then  so  proudly  hailed,  I  saw  waving 
at  the  same  place  over  the  victims  of  as  vulgar  and  brutal  a 
despotism  as  modern  times  have  witnessed." 

Bancroft  (Life  of  Wm.  H.  Seward,  Vol.  II.,  p.  276,  et  seq.) 
says,  "  It  is  extremely  doubtful  if  Maryland  could  have  been 
saved  from  secession  and  Washington  from  consequent 
seizure  if  the  Mayor  and  Police  Commissioners  of  Baltimore, 


138  The  Real  Lincoln. 

several  members  of  the  Legislature,  and  many  prominent 
citizens  of  both  Maryland  and  Virginia,  had  not  been  de 
prived  of  their  power  to  do  harm."  An  earlier  statement 
(p.  254)  shows  how  they  were  deprived  of  it,  as  follows: 
After  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  "  the  Balti 
more  Marshal  of  Police,  the  Police  Commissioners,  and  other 
men  of  prominence  were  seized  and  sent  to  the  United  States 
fort.  Several  members  of  the  Legislature  that  were  expect 
ing  to  push  through  an  ordinance  of  secession  the  next  day 
were  arrested  in  September,  1861,  and  treated  like  other 
political  prisoners."  The  list  wrould  be  long  of  the  men  most 
honored  and  trusted  in  Maryland  who  were  kept  in  close, 
painful,  and  often  fatal  confinement  until  the  next  election- 
day  was  past.  A  special  proclamation  of  the  War  Depart 
ment  was  addressed  to  Marylanders,  deploring  the  necessity 
of  keeping  in  prison  so  large  a  number  of  prominent  citizens 
of  the  State,  and  expressing  regret  that  "public  policy" 
did  not  permit  the  charges  on  which  they  were  arrested  to 
be  revealed  to  themselves  or  to  their  friends,  with  assurances 
that  no  private  grudges  have  been  allowed  to  have  influence 
in  the  arrests.  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana  records,2  with  evident 
complacency,  the  arrest  in  one  day  of  ninety-seven  of  the 
first  people  in  Baltimore  and  their  imprisonment  in  Wash 
ington,  mostly  in  solitary  confinement. 

General  John  A.  Dix  writes  Mr.  Montgomery  Blair,  August 
31,  1861, 3  that  he  hesitates  to  suppress  the  Exchange  news 
paper  without  authority  from  the  commanding  general, 
McClellan,  and  Blair  forwards  the  letter  to  McClellan,  with 
the  endorsement:  "I  believe  the  Exchange,  the  Republican 

2In  his  lately  published  Recollections  of  the  Civil  War,  p.  236,  et  seq. 
sWar  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series   II.,   Vol.   I.,   p.   590. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  139 

and  the  South  should  be  suppressed.  They  are  open  dis- 
unionists.  The  Sun  is  in  sympathy,  but  less  diabolical." 
In  October,  1861,  General  Dix  writes  the  Secretary  of 
War,  Stan  ton,  that  he  has  "  some  doubt  about  the  expediency 
of  allowing  Dr.  A.  C.  Robinson  to  return  to  Baltimore  until 
after  the  fall  election,"  though  he  concedes  that  Dr.  R.  is 
"not  a  dangerous  man  like  Wallis."  He  is  "confident  that 
Maryland  will  be  a  Union  State  in  NovembeV,"  and  he  might 
well  be  confident,  for  between  pages  536  and  738  of  the  volume 
above  indicated  are  scores  of  letters  of  Generals  Dix,  N.  P. 
Banks,  John  E.  Wool,  and  Winfield  Scott,  and  of  Secretary 
Seward,  which  show  that  a  very  great  number  of  the  most 
honored  men  in  Maryland,  including  a  large  part  of  the  offi 
cials  of  the  State  government  and  the  Baltimore  city  govern 
ment,  were  in  prison,  and  that  every  man  of  the  least  import 
ance  who  had  left  it  in  doubt  whether  he  meant  to  support 
Mr.  Lincoln  had  good  reason  to  expect  imprisonment.  And 
these  same  officials  concede,  on  pages  596,  648, 603,  and  682, 
that  the  prisons  were  loathsome  and  dangerous  to  life,  and 
so  crowded  that  the  prisoners  had  to  be  sent  to  Forts  Dela 
ware  and  Warren  and  Columbus  and  Monroe,  and  that  these 
distant  points  were  selected  for  the  plainly  avowed  purpose 
of  placing  the  prisoners  where  their  captors  would  be  less 
annoyed  by  the  solicitations  for  their  release  by  their  friends. 
On  page  586  of  the  same  volume,  General  Banks  formulates 
the  policy  very  plainly:  "While  I  confidently  assure  the 
Government  that  their  detention  is  yet  necessary,  I  do  not 
think  that  a  trial  for  any  positive  crime  can  result  in  their 
conviction."  He  recommends,  however,  on  page  627,  that 
Mr.  Charles  D.  Hinks  be  released  because  he  is  dying,  and 
"his  death  in  prison  wrould  make  an  unpleasant  impression." 


140  The  Real  Lincoln. 

The  need  to  keep  confined  even  those  under  slightest  sus 
picion  is  frequently  urged,  based  on  the  fact  that  they  can 
not  safely  be  allowed  to  reach  home  before  the  State  elec 
tion. 

It  is  curious  to  read,  at  page  622,  the  official  report  that 
as  many  as  nine  companies  of  Massachusetts  soldiers  were 
sent  to  arrest  Mr.  Charles  Howard,  and  four  companies  of 
Pennsylvania  soldiers  to  arrest  William  H.  Gatchell,  and  seven 
companies  of  the  same  to  arrest  Messrs.  John  W.  Davis  and 
Charles  D.  Hinks.  Marshal  Kane  was  arrested  by  a  like 
force  in  his  bed  at  3  o'clock  in  the  morning,  and  "  the  police 
in  the  route  were  taken  into  custody  to  prevent  an  alarm." 
His  imprisonment  lasted  seventeen  months. 

Even  to  the  most  "loyal"  Marylanders  it  must  have  been 
more  or  less  trying  to  have  these  despotic  functions  executed 
in  their  midst  by  men  from  Vermont,  Massachusetts,  and 
Pennsylvania,  and  the  absolute  control  of  property  and  life 
in  Maryland  committed  to  men  from  a  distance,  like  Generals 
Scott,  Butler,  Schenck,  Banks,  Wool,  and  McClellan,  to 
ex-Governors  of  other  States,  like  Seward  and  Chase.  Gen 
eral  Dix  refused  to  furnish  arms  asked  by  Mr.  J.  Crawford 
Neilson  for  protection  of  himself  and  neighbors  in  Harford 
county,  expressing  a  doubt  on  which  side  the  arms  would 
be  used,  and  adding:  "Until  a  better  feeling  prevails  the 
preservation  of  Maryland  to  the  Union  (and  without  her  the 
Union  could  not  exist)  cannot  safely  be  left  to  herself.  I 
trust  the  time  is  not  far  distant  when  it  may,  and  when  it 
comes  my  occupation  will  be  gone."  See  Series  I.,  Vol.  V., 
pp.  632-633. 

The  satraps  themselves  sometimes  gagged  at  the  nauseous 
doses  prescribed  for  them  to  swallow,  as  when  General  Wool 
explained  to  Secretary  Stanton  why  he  declined  to  furnish 


The  Real  Lincoln.  141 

troops  called  for  by  the  Governor  of  Maryland  to  enforce 
the  draft  (Series  III.,  Vol.  2,  p.  509):  "If  a  State  cannot 
enforce  its  own  laws  without  United  States  soldiers,  we  may 

as  well  give  up  at  once I  do  not  want  men  who 

are  forced  into  the  service.  We  have  now  more  treason  in 
the  army  than  we  can  well  get  along  with."  And  he  rather 
strangely  adds:  "This  is  no  fiction." 

In  a  memorandum  (Series  II.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  713)  sent  Sec 
retary  Seward  for  his  guidance,  by  General  Dix,  it  is  set 
against  the  names  of  some  of  the  prisoners  that  they  "voted 
wrong"  or  "voted  treasonably."  Pendleton,  Vallandig- 
ham,  Voorhees,  and  many  others  were  "voting  treasonably" 
in  Congress  at  this  very  time;  but  when  the  Administration 
could  spare  time  from  Maryland  to  attend  to  Ohio  and  In 
diana,  these  gentlemen  were  gotten  out  of  the  way  by  banish 
ment  and  other  methods  new  in  America. 

On  page  712  of  Series  II.,  Vol.  I.,  I  find  that  General  Dix, 
still  providing  against  election-day,  writes:  "Dr.  A.  A. 
Lynch,  Senator,  might,  I  think,  be  released,  on  condition 
that  he  should  resign  his  place  in  the  Senate  and  take  the 
oath.  The  Union  men  have  a  majority  in  the  Senate,  but 
it  is  now  considered  desirable  to  have  three  more."  But 
he  writes,  on  page  727,  to  Secretary  Seward:  "I  do  not  think 
Mr.  T.  Parkin  Scott  should  be  released,  even  if  he  should 
agree  to  take  the  oath  of  allegiance.  His  presence  here 
(in  Baltimore)  would  be  very  distasteful  to  the  friends  of 
the  Union,  whose  feelings  should  be  respected."  This  ten 
der  consideration  for  the  feelings  of  certain  persons  is  further 
illustrated  by  a  letter  (p.  682)  of  Simon  Cameron,  then  Sec 
retary  of  War:  "My  Dear  Seward, — In  order  to  gratify 
Johnson,  I  say  that  the  release  of  Ross  Winans  will  not 
pain  me."  No  humble  subordinates  are  acting.  We  find 


142  The  Real  Lincoln. 

the  order  of  Simon  Cameron  himself,  as  Secretary  of  War, 
to  General  Banks  (p.  678) :  "  The  passage  of  any  act  of  seces 
sion  by  the  Legislature  of  Maryland  must  be  prevented. 
If  necessary  all  or  any  part  of  the  members  must  be  arrested." 
And  the  commander-in-chief,  General  McClellan,  orders 
General  Banks,  page  605,  "to  send  detachments  of  a  suffi 
cient  number  of  men  to  the  different  points  in  }^our  vicinity 
where  the  elections  are  to  be  held." 

After  we  have  learned  that  the  State  election  was  beyond 
question  held  under  certain  conditions  as  above  described, 
it  is  curious  to  read  in  a  "  draft  of  a  proclamation  by  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States  found  among  the  files  of  the  State 
Department"  (Series  II,  Vol.  I.,  p.  617)  that  the  reason 
assigned  in  it  by  Mr.  Lincoln  for  releasing  all  the  political 
prisoners  is  "the  recent  declaration  of  the  people  of  Mary 
land  of  their  adhesion  to  the  Union  so  distinctly  made  in 
their  recent  election." 

The  minute  scale  of  the  supervision  over  Maryland  thought 
necessary  by  men  so  conspicuous  as  Montgomery  Blair  and 
the  general  commanding,  McClellan,  is  indicated  by  the 
following  letter  of  Blair  to  McClellan,  September,  1861, 4 
"No  secession  flag  has  to  the  knowledge  of  the  police  been 
exhibited  in  Baltimore  for  many  weeks,  except  a  small 
paper  flag  displayed  by  a  child  at  an  upper  window.  It  was 
immediately  removed  by  them."  The  large  scale,  too,  on 
which  Maryland  was  thought  to  need  restraint  as  late  as 
June  16,  1862,  is  indicated5  when  General  Wool  gives  to  the 
Secretary  of  War  as  one  of  the  reasons  why  "  a  reserve  corps, 
if  practicable,  of  50,000  men  should  be  stationed  between 
Washington  and  Baltimore,  that  they  would  give  protection 

4War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Reports  of  Union  and  Confederate  Armies,  Series 
II.,  Vol.  I.,  p.  591,  or  511. 

5Series  I.,  Vol.  XII.,   Part  II.,  p.  397. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  143 

and  confidence  to  the  loyal  men  of  both  these  cities/'  and 
the  same  is  urged  again  on  the  same  by  the  same  on  page  424. 
Burgess  shows  (The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  Vol.  I., 
p.  204)  his  bitter  partisanship  for  North  against  South  and 
his  blind  injustice  to  Maryland,  as  follows:  Maryland  "had 
played  a  disgraceful  part,  but  it  had  served  the  national 
interest  by  rousing  the  anger  of  the  North  to  the  fighting 
point." 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
Despotism  in  Kentucky. 

BURGESS   says  (The  Civil  War  and  the  Constitution, 
Vol.  L,  p.  191,)  "It  was  the  attitude  of  Kentucky, 
however,   which,    next    to    that  of  Maryland,   gave  Mr. 
Lincoln  the  greatest  concern." 

Ida  Tarbell  says:  "Moreover,  he  feared  that  the  least 
interference  with  slavery  would  drive  from  him  those 
States  lying  between  the  North  and  the  South."  Hap- 
good  quotes  (Lincoln,  p.  245)  from  a  confidential  letter 
of  Lincoln's  to  his  old  friend  Browning,  dated  September 
22nd,  1862,  his  words  to  this  point.  He  says  about  his 
forbidding  the  execution  of  Fremont's  emancipation  pro 
clamation,  "  The  Kentucky  Legislature  would  not  budge — 
would  be  turned  against  us.  I  think  to  lose  Kentucky 
is  nearly  the  same  as  to  lose  the  whole  game.  Kentucky 
gone,  we  cannot  hold  Missouri,  nor,  I  think,  Maryland. 
These  all  gone,  and  the  job  on  our  hands  is  too  large  for 
us."  Ropes  says  (Story  of  the  Civil  War,  Part  II.,  p.  41), 
"The  people  of  Kentucky  were,  as  we  know,  very  evenly 
divided  in  sentiment,"  and  Rhodes  says  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  391):  "The  course  of  public 
opinion  was  very  like  that  of  Virginia  up  to  the  parting 
of  their  ways;  and  as  most  of  the  leaders  of  ability  were 
with  the  South,  it  is  easy  to  see  that  a  little  change  of 
circumstances,  a  little  alteration  of  the  direction  of  feeling, 
might  in  the  end  have  impelled  Kentucky  to  take  up  arms 
for  the  Confederacy  instead  of  for  the  Union.  Lincoln's 
own  knowledge  of  the  division  of  mind  in  Kentucky  is 

(144) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  145 

shown  even  better  than  above  by  the  following:  Leslie 
F.  Perry,  late  of  the  War  Record's  Board  of  Publication, 
Washington,  D.  C.,  shows1  that  Lincoln,  July  9th,  1861, 
referred  the  question  whether  Jesse  Bagley  should  be 
allowed  to  raise  a  Kentucky  regiment  by  a  letter  addressed 
to  "Gentlemen  of  the  Kentucky  Delegation  who  are  for 
the  Union."  Fowlke  says  (Life  of  Morton,  Vol.  I.,  p. 
133,  et  seq.)  that  Governor  Bramlette  replied  in  response  to 
Lincoln's  call  for  soldiers,  "  Kentucky  will  furnish  no  troops 
for  the  wicked  purpose  of  subduing  her  Southern  Sisters," 
that  he  convened  the  Legislature  and  got  their  approval 
of  his  answer  by  a  vote  of  eighty-nine  to  four."  The  fol 
lowing  document  pictures  vividly  the  state  of  things  in 
Kentucky.  Major  Sidell,  Acting  Assistant  Provost  Marshal- 
General,  writes2  on  13th  March,  1864,  from  Louisville, 
Kentucky,  to  Col.  Fry,  Provost  Marshal-General  in  Wash 
ington,  reporting  that  Colonel  Walford,  of  the  First  Ken 
tucky  Cavalry,  has,  in  speeches  at  Lexington  and  Dan 
ville,  "denounced  the  President  and  his  Administration, 
arid  even  went  so  far  as  to  counsel  forcible  resistance  to 
the  enrollment  of  negroes  under  the  present  act  of  Con 
gress.  Governor  Bramlette  was  on  the  stage  at  the  time 
and  gave  no  evidence  of  dissent  then  or  subsequently. 
.  .  .  .  Public  opinion  grows  very  fast.  Unfortunately 
there  is  no  really  loyal  paper  in  the  State,3  so  that  no 
means  exists  to  set  forth  loyal  views."  On  pp.  288-9 
the  same  reports  to  the  same,  "The  presence  of  guerillas 
and  a  sympathizing  population  and  absence  of  mounted 
force  create  great  difficulty  in  the  First  District.  In  four 

lLippincott' s  Magazine  for  February,   1902,  pp.  205,  209. 
2War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Reports  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial  Number  125,  p.   174,  p.   175. 

3What  evidence  could  be  more  conclusive  of  the  attitude  of  Kentucky. 

10 


146  The  Real  Lincoln. 

counties  negroes  cannot  be  enrolled,  and  their  enrollment 
in  other  counties  is  incomplete.  The  seven  counties  west 
of  the  Tennessee  river  ....  are  the  worst."  Ken 
tucky  must  have  been  disloyal  indeed  when  the  approach 
of  General  Morgan's  little  force  could  cause  such  a  report 
as  the  following,  found  in  the  above-named  :4  Brigadier- 
General  J.  T.  Boyle  writes  Secretary  Stanton,  July  19th, 
1862,  from  his  headquarters  at  Louisville,  Kentucky,  "  The 
State  is  in  imminent  danger  of  being  overrun  by  Morgan 
and  those  joining  him.  If  he  should  succeed  in  a  fight  with 
our  forces  there  is  danger  of  the  uprising  of  the  traitors 
in  our  midst There  is  a  concerted  plan  be 
tween  the  traitors  at  home  and  the  rebels  in  arms.  Mor 
gan's  force  has  increased.  It  is  estimated  at  from  2,500 
to  3,500.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  so  large."  A  letter  from 
the  same  to  the  same,  on  the  next  page,  says,  "His  whole 

force  does  not  exceed  1,200,  if  that There 

are  bands  of  guerillas  in  Henderson,  Davis,  and  Webster 
counties."  And  yet  another,  on  page  749,  says,  "They 
have  bands  in  many  parts  of  this  State.  Many  of  the 
best  men  in  the  State  believe  there  is  preparation  for  a 
general  uprising.  I  believe  there  is  such  purpose  and 
plans." 

John  Brough,  Governor  of  Ohio,  wrote,  June  9th,  1864, 
to  Secretary  Stan  ton,5  "  External  raids  and  internal  trouble 
in  Indiana  and  Illinois  promise  a  warm  summer's  work." 
The  same  wrote  the  same,6  "You  must  change  policy  in 
Kentucky Nothing  but  a  vigorous  applica 
tion  of  Maryland  policy  will  do  in  Kentucky." 

'Series  I.,  Vol.  XVI.,  p.  747. 

5War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial  Number  125. 

"Same  volume,  p.  429,  June  11,  1864. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

Despotism  in  Indiana. 

TpOWLKE  says  (Life  of  Morton,  Vol.  I.,  p.  35),  "The 
feelings  of  the  people  of  Indiana  were  not  unfriendly 
to  the  South,  nor  to  her  'peculiar  institution.'  The 
State  was  considered  'one  of  the  outlying  provinces 
of  the  empire  of  slavery.'  In  1851  a  new  Constitution 
had  been  submitted  to  the  people,  forbidding  negroes  to 
come  into  the  State  and  punishing  those  who  employed 
them.  It  was  ratified  by  a  popular  majority  of  nearly 
ninety  thousand.  Morton  had  •  voted  for  it.  Moreover 
he  had  always  been  opposed  to  Abolitionists." 

Fowlke  quotes  (p.  297)  Harrison  PL  Dodd,  Grand  Com 
mander  of  the  Sons  of  Liberty  in  Indiana,  addressing  a 
Democratic  meeting  in  Hendricks  county  and  saying  that 
"the  real  cause  of  the  war  was  the  breach  of  faith  by 
the  North  in  not  adhering  to  the  original  compact  of  the 
States";  ....  that  "in  twenty- three  States  we 
had  governments  assisting  the  tyrants  and  usurpers  at 
Washington  to  carry  on  a  military  depotism."  At  page 
179  Fowlke  says,  "When  the  news  came  that  Fort  Sumter 
had  been  fired  on  and  the  North  was  one  blaze  of  patriotism, 
there  were  several  centres  of  disaffection  in  Indiana  where 
sentiments  favorable  to  the  South  were  freely  spoken." 
Page  381  shows  that  the  order  of  the  Golden  Circle1  had 
been  introduced  into  the  Federal  camps  at  Indianapolis." 
At  p.  98,  et  seq.j  of  Vol.  I.,  Fowlke  says,  "A  meeting  of 
citizens  in  Cannelton,  in  Perry  county,  on  the  Ohio,  re- 

1An  organization  of  which  see  more  hereafter. 

(147) 


148  The  Real  Lincoln. 

solved  that,  ....  if  a  line  was  to  be  drawn  between 
the  sections,  it  must  be  drawn  north  of  Cannelton." 
Fowlke  quotes  (Vol.  I.,  p.  262,  et  seq.)  the  following  denun 
ciation  of  Governor  Morton,  published  in  the  Sentinel  news 
paper  by  John  C.  Walker,  a  prominent  official  just  elected  for 
special  duties  by  the  Legislature :  "  The  disposition  mani 
fested  by  the  party  in  power  to  fasten  a  despotism  upon 
this  county  by  the  destruction  of  the  ballot-box  may  yet 
compel  a  people  naturally  forbearing  and  tolerant  to  rise 
in  their  might  and  teach  our  modern  Neros  and  Caligulas 
that  they  cannot  be  sustained."  Fowlke  goes  on  (Vol. 
I.,  p.  175),  "But  Democratic  County  Conventions  still 
criticised  the  Administration  and  opposed  the  war.  The 
convention  at  Rushville,  on  December  28th,  1861,  .  .  . 
declared  that  the  Union  could  not  be  preserved  by  the 
exercise  of  coercive  power."  And  Fowlke  shows  (Vol.  I., 
p.  175,  et  seq.)  that  the  action  of  the  Democratic  State  Con 
vention  was  dead  against  the  Administration,  the  war,  and 
emancipation,  and  quotes  (Vol.  I.,  p.  208)  a  letter  of 
Governor  Morton  to  Lincoln,  of  October  27th,  1862,  as 
follows:  "The  Democratic  politicians  of  Ohio,  Indiana, 
and  Illinois  assume  that  the  rebellion  will  not  be  crushed." 
And  the  letter  goes  on  to  say  that  they  urge  (p.  209)  that 
"  their  interests  are  antagonistic  to  New  England's  and 
in  harmony  with  those  of  the  South,  ....  that 
reasonable  terms  of  settlement  offered  by  the  South  and 
refused  had  brought  on  the  war."  Governor  Morton 
wrote  Lincoln,  October  7th,  1862  (Vol.  I.,  p.  197),  "An 
other  three  months  like  the  last  six  and  we  are  lost — lost." 

Fowlke   says    (p.    199),    "The    draft   was 

conducted  without  disturbance,  except  at  Hartford  City, 
in  Blackford  county,  where  the  draft-box  was  destroyed 


The  Real  Lincoln.  149 

and  the  draft  was  stopped,  but  on  the  third  day  after  it 
was  completed."  Fowlke  does  not  say  by  what  force, 
but  goes  on  (Vol.  I.,  p.  205,  et  seq.):  "The  outcome  of 
the  election  was  the  choice  of  Democratic  State  officers 
and  of  a  Democratic  Legislature.  In  a  Democratic  jubilee 
at  Cambridge  City,  November  15th,  where  Vallandigham, 
Hendricks,  Jason  B.  Brown,  H.  H.  Dodd,  Geo.  H.  Pendle- 
ton,  and  others  spoke,  ....  cheers  for  Jeff  Davis 
and  curses  for  Abolitionists  were  heard."  And  he  says 
(p.  382),  "After  the  election  of  1862  the  Democratic 
majorities  in  both  Houses  of  the  General  Assembly  were 
bitterly  hostile  to  the  Administration  and  to  the  further 
prosecution  of  the  war." 

A  note  on  p.  382  tells  of  sixteen  meetings  held  within  two 
months  to  advocate  peace.  The  men  who  thus  boldly 
led  this  opposition  to  Lincoln  and  all  his  aims,  like  Gover 
nor  Seymour,  in  New  York,  were  not  turned  down  or 
blamed  for  it  by  their  constituency  when  the  war  was 
over,  for  Morton  said  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate,  20th  June, 
1866  (Vol.  I.,  p.  270),  "The  leaders  who  are  now  managing 
the  Democratic  party  in  the  State  are  the  men  who,  at 
the  regular  session  of  the  Legislature  in  1861,  declared  that 
if  an  army  went  from  Indiana  to  assist  in  putting  down 
the  then  approaching  rebellion,  it  must  first  pass  over 
their  dead  bodies."  Fowlke  goes  on  (Vol.  I.,  p.  213)  to 
describe  what  he  calls  "The  Peace  Legislature"  of  In 
diana,  as  follows:  "The  political  outlook  was  gloomy. 
.  .  .  .  Peace  at  any  price,  recognition  of  Southern  in 
dependence,  the  formation  of  a  Northwestern  Confederacy, 
had  their  advocacy."  And  he  describes  (Vol.  I.,  p.  220) 
a  demonstration  held  January  14th,  in  Shelby  county, 
at  which  "  resolutions  were  adopted  recommending  a  cessa- 


150  The  Real  Lincoln. 

tion  of  hostilities,  opposing  the  conscription  act,  and 
declaring  that  soldiers  had  been  induced  to  enter  the  army 
by  the  false  representation  that  the  war  was  waged  solely 
to  maintain  the  Constitution  and  restore  the  Union." 
Fowlke  quotes  (Vol.,  L,  p.,  243,  et  seq.)  from  a  speech  of 
Governor  Morton  in  January  his  statement  that  General 
Grant  had  disbanded  the  109th  Illinois  regiment  for  dis 
loyalty,  its  officers  being  sworn  members  of  a  disloyal 
society^  one  of  the  purposes  of  which  was  to  encourage 
desertion  and  demoralize  the  army.  Morton  says  that 
the  1st,  2nd,  3rd,  and  5th  regiments  had  been  similarly 
demoralized,  arid  an  artillery  company  had  been  destroyed, 
by  this  agency.  He  records  (p.  250)  that  Vallandigham, 
who  had  been  required  to  leave  the  country  on  account 
of  his  disloyal  utterances,  had  become  the  idol  of  the 
peace  Democrats,  and  quotes  (p.  302)  from  a  speech  of 
D.  H.  Corrick,  to  the  Democratic  Convention,  received 
with  applause,  "Nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  men  out 
of  every  thousand  whom  I  represent  breathe  no  other 
prayer  than  to  have  an  end  of  this  hellish  war.  When 
news  of  our  victories  comes,  there  is  no  rejoicing.  When 
news  of  our  defeat  comes,  there  is  no  sorrow."  Fowlke 
says  plainly  (Vol.  I.,  p.  99)  that  the  action  of  the  State 
Convention  of  the  Democratic* party  "looked  like  revolu 
tion  in  the  bosom  of  the  North."  Most  significantly  the 
meetings  held  for  such  purposes  were  called  "  Union  meet 
ings."  To  quote  Fowlke's  words  (p.  99),  "Union  meet 
ings,  as  they  were  called,  were  held  everywhere  throughout 
the  State,  the  object  being  to  propose  some  concessions 
which  should  bring  the  South  back  to  the  Union."  And 
Morton  telegraphed  (p.  183)  to  the  President,  October 
21st,  "In  the  Northwest  distrust  and  despair  are  seizing 


The  Real  Lincoln.  151 

on  the  hearts  of  the  people."  At  what  Fowlke  calls,  as 
above  explained,  "a  Union  meeting,"  of  18th  June,  Morton 
said  that  "the  traitors  ....  would  array  the 
Northwest  against  New  England.  ....  There  were 
many  persons  in  Indiana  who  still  cherished  this  wild  and 
wicked  dream." 

Rhodes  quotes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  223)  the  following  telegram  from  Governor  Morton 
to  the  Secretary  of  War,  "  I  am  advised  that  it  is  con 
templated  when  the  Legislature  meets  in  this  State  to  pass 
a  joint  resolution  acknowledging  the  Southern  Confederacy, 
and  urging  the  States  of  the  Northwest  to  dissolve  all 
constitutional  relations  with  the  New  England  States. 
The  same  thing  is  on  foot  in  Illinois." 

In  Illinois  resolutions  praying  for  an  armistice,  and 
recommending  a  convention  of  all  the  States  to  agree 
upon  some  adjustment  of  the  trouble  between  them,  passed 
the  House,  but  failed  by  a  few  votes  to  obtain  considera 
tion  in  the  Senate.  Then  Rhodes  gives  a  letter  of  Morton 
to  Stanton,  taken,  he  says,  "from  the  War  Department 
archives,"  as  follows,  dated  January  4th,  1863:  "It  has 
been  discovered  within  the  past  two  weeks  that  the  treason 
able  political  secret  organization  having  for  its  object 
the  withdrawal  of  the  Northwestern  States  from  the 
Union,  which  exists  in  every  part  of  this  State,  has  ob 
tained  a  foothold  in  the  military  camps  in  this  city." 
The  War  of  the  Rebellion  Official  Records  of  Union  and 
Confederate  Armies,  Serial  No.  124,  p.  19,  gives  the  fol 
lowing  letter  of  Colonel  Carrington  of  the  18th  U.  S.  In 
fantry  to  General  Thomas,  Adjutant-General  United  States 
army,  Washington,  from  Headquarters  Mustering  and 
Disbursing  Service,  State  of  Indiana,  Indianapolis,  January 


152  The  Real  Lincoln. 

24th,  1863:  "Nearly  2,600  deserters  and  stragglers  have 
been  arrested  within  a  very  few  weeks;  generally  it  requires 
an  armed  detail.  Most  of  the  deserters,  true  to  the  oath 
of  the  order  (Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle),  desert  with 
their  arms,  and  in  one  case  seventeen  fortified  themselves 
in  a  log  cabin  with  outside  paling  and  ditch  for  protection, 
and  were  maintained  by  their  neighbors."  On  p.  75  the 
same  writes  to  the  same,  March  19th,  1863:  "Matters 
assume  grave  import.  Two  hundred  mounted  armed 
men  in  Rush  county  have  to-day  resisted  arrest  of  deserters. 
Have  sent  one  hundred  infantry  by  special  train  to  arrest 
deserters  and  ringleaders.  Southern  Indiana  is  ripe  for 
revolution." 

The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  Serial  No.  125,  p.  529,  gives 
a  letter  from  R.  W.  Thompson,  Captain  and  Provost 
Marshal  at  Terre  Haute,  Indiana,  July  20th,  1864,  to 
Provost-Marshal-General  Fry  that  reports  fighting  in  Sulli 
van  county  betwreen  "butternuts"  and  soldiers,  writh  one 
killed  and  one  wounded.  "The  result  is  that  there  are 
large  numbers  of  men  riding  about  over  the  country 
armed  and  some  of  them  shouting  for  Vallandigham  and 
Jeff  Davis,  and  professing  to  be  in  search  of  soldiers. 
There  have  been  more  than  two  hundred  together  at  one 
time  .  .  .  We  have  a  terrible  state  of  things;  such 
as  excites  a  reasonable  apprehension  of  resistance  to  the 
draft."  .  .  . 

Fowlke's  claim  for  Morton  is  that  (p.  254.  et  seq.)  he 
kept  Indiana  from  becoming  "an  ally  of  the  Confederacy"; 
that  he  acted  (p.  259)  despite  the  decisions  of  the  Supreme 
Court.  He  says  that  when  Morton  told  Stanton  that 
Lincoln  said  he  could  find  no  law  for  supporting  him 
with  money,  Stanton  answered,  "  By  God,  I  will  find  a  law." 


The  Real  Lincoln.  153 

Fowlke  (Life  of  Morton,  Vol.  I,  p.  115)  concedes  that 
even  in  the  ebullition  on  the  call  to  arms  only  fear  kept 
down  the  feeling  for  the  South  in  Indiana,  and  that  the 
Legislature  of  the  13th  January  (p.  99)  .  .  .  .  "  re 
peated  in  its  small  way  the  follies  and  weaknesses  of 
Congress."  Their  follies  and  weaknesses  seem  to  mean 
the  resistance  of  each  to  the  Executive,  for  finally,  Fowlke 
says  (Vol.  I.,  p.  98),  "public  opinion  in  Indiana  was  an 
epitome  of  public  sentiment  in  the  Nation  at  large" — a 
very  comprehensive  concession. 

Fowlke  writes  as  late  as  1899,  and  in  eulogy,  not  cen 
sure  of  Morton.  He  heads  a  chapter  (Life  of  Governor 
Morton,  Chapter  XXII.) :  "I  am  the  State,"  and  begins, 
"Morton  accomplished  what  had  never  before  been  at 
tempted  in  American  history.  For  two  years  he  carried 
on  the  government  of  a  great  State  solely  by  his  own  per 
sonal  energy,  raising  money  without  taxation  on  his  own 
responsibility  and  distributing  it  through  bureaus  orga 
nized  by  himself."  French  says  (Life  of  Morton,  p.  423) 
that  at  the  commencement  of  the  year  1863  .... 
the  secret  enemies  of  the  Government  ....  had 
succeeded  in  the  election  of  an  Indiana  Legislature  which 
"was  principally  composed  of  men  sworn  to  oppose  to 
the  bitter  end  the  prosecution  of  the  war,  with  the  pur 
pose  of  encouraging  the  enemies  of  American  liberty  in 
their  work  of  rebellion  and  destruction."  Nicolay  and 
Hay  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  VIII.,  p.  8,  et  seq.)  confirm 
the  above  account  of  Indiana,  and  say  that  but  for  Gover 
nor  Morton  the  Indiana  Legislature  would  have  recog 
nized  the  Confederacy  and  "dissolved  the  federal  relation 
with  the  United  States." 


154  The  Real  Lincoln. 

In  "Life  and  Services  of  0.  P.  Morton,"  on  p.  43 — pub 
lished  by  the  Indiana  Republican  Committee — we  find  the 
following :  "  During  the  winter  of  1862  and  the  summer 
of  1863  the  disloyal  sentiment  (in  Indiana)  was  very 
active.  County  and  local  meetings  were  held  in  many 
parts  of  the  State,  which  declared  the  war  cruel  and  un 
necessary,  denounced  President  Lincoln  as  a  tyrant  and 
usurper,  Union  soldiers  as  Lincoln's  hirelings,  etc."  .  .  . 
In  the  fall  of  1862  the  Democrats  carried  the  State,  elect- 
ting  a  Democratic  Legislature.  It  was  thoroughly  disloyal, 
the  Democrats  having  a  majority  of  six  in  the  Senate 
and  twenty-four  in  the  House.  The  first  thing  they  did 
was  to  decline  to  receive  Governor  Morton's  message  and 
to  pass  a  joint  resolution  tendering  thanks  to  Governor 
Seymour  of  New  York  for  the  exalted  and  patriotic  senti 
ments  contained  in  his  recent  message They 

adopted  resolutions  denouncing  arbitrary  arrests,  and 
declared  that  Indiana  would  not  voluntarily  contribute 
another  man  or  another  dollar  to  be  used  for  such  wicked, 
inhuman,  and  unholy  purposes  as  the  prosecution  of  the 
war.  They  instructed  the  Senators  and  requested  the 
Representatives  in  Congress  from  Indiana  to  take  meas 
ures  to  suspend  hostilities,  etc. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 
Attitude  of  Ohio  and  Illinois. 

^TALLANDIGHAM'S  career  gives  much  light  on  the 
*  attitude  of  Ohio.  Rhodes  gives  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  226,  et  seq.)  extracts  from 
his  speech  in  Congress,  14th  January,  1863,  with  bitter 
censure  of  it,  as  follows :  "  The  war  for  the  Union  is  on  your 
hands,  a  most  bloody  and  costly  failure.  The  President 

confessed  it  on  the  22nd  September War  for 

the  Union  was  abandoned;  war  for  the  Negro  openly 
began I  trust  I  am  not  'discouraging  enlist 
ments.  '  If  I  am,  then  first  arrest  Lincoln  and  Stanton  and 

Hal  leek But  can  you  draft  again?     .... 

Ask  Massachusetts Ask  not  Ohio,   nor  the 

Northwest.     She  thought   you   were  in  earnest  and  gave 

you  all,  all — more  than  you  demanded But 

ought  this  war  to  continue?  I  answer,  No — not  a  day,  not 
an  hour.  What  then?  Shall  we  separate?  Again  I  an 
swer,  No,  no,  no !  What  then?  ....  Stop  fighting. 
Make  an  armistice.  Accept  at  once  friendly  foreign  media 
tion  and  begin  the  work  of  reunion,  we  shall  yet  escape." 

After  this  daring  defiance  of  Lincoln  in 

his  capital  city,  Vallandigham  returned  to  meet  in  his 
home  the  acclaim  of  his  party. 

John  A.  Logan  records  (The  Great  Conspiracy,  p.  557) 
a  gathering  at  Springfield,  Illinois  (Lincoln's  home),  of 
nearly  one  hundred  thousand  Vallandigham,  Anti-War, 
Peace,  Democrats,  which  utterly  repudiated  the  war. 
See,  also,  page  559,  et  seq. 

(155) 


156  The  Real  Lincoln. 

General  Burnside  was  in  command  of  the  three  States, 
Ohio,  Indiana,  and  Illinois,  excluding  from  circulation 
such  papers  as  the  New  York  Herald;  suppressing 
the  Chicago  Times,  and  this  in  a  region — as  Rhodes 
describes  it  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  252) — "  where  there  was  no 
war — where  the  courts  were  open — where  the  people 
were  living  under  the  American  Constitution  and  English 
law."  Rhodes  says  (p.  246,  et  seq.)  that  Burnside  began 
"literally  to  breathe  out  threatenings,  ....  de 
nouncing  the  penalty  of  death  for  certain  offenses." 

The  story  is  too  long  as  Rhodes  tells  it  (Vol.  IV.,  p. 
247:)  Two  of  Burnside's  captains,  in  citizen's  clothes,1 
were  sent  to  hear  Vallandigham's  speech  at  Mount  Vernon, 
Ohio.  The  officers. broke  into  his  house  at  2  A.  M.,  and 
took  him  before  a  military  commission  for  trial.  The 
whole  mode  of  procedure  and  the  sentence  to  "close  con 
finement  during  the  continuance  of  the  war"  provoked 
such  wide  arid  bitter  criticism  and  resentment  that  Lin 
coln  commuted  the  sentence  to  banishment — a  penalty 
not  before  known  to  the  country,  and  "  not  for  deeds  done, 
but  for  words  spoken,"  to  use  the  language  in  which  it 
was  denounced  by  John  Sherman,  and  these  were  words 
that  had  been  spoken  in  public  debate  and  received  with 
wild  applause  by  thousands  of  his  constituents.2 

Dr.  Holland  tells,  too,  of  the  bitter  reprobation  this 
provoked  in  New  York.  Nicolay  and  Hay  tell  (Abraham 
Lincoln,  Vol.  VII.,  p.  328)  very  nearly  the  same  story 
about  Vallandigham  and  the  resentment  in  New  York 
(p.  341)  at  Lincoln's  treatment  of  Vallandigham.  Rhodes 

KDfficers  in  the  service  of  the  United  States  very  rarely  laid  aside  their  uniform 
as  is  so  constantly  done  now. 

2John  Sherman's  Recollections,  Vol.  I.,  p.  323,  and  Holland's  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  p.  471,  et  seq. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  157 

labors  to  defend  the  banishment  and  two  long  papers 
issued  by  Lincoln  in  defense  of  his  course,  but  is  reduced 
to  the  strait  of  reciting  as  one  argument  in  justification  of 
the  conviction  that  "it  was  known  no  jury  wrould  convict." 
But  at  last  he  has  to  say  (p.  248,  et  seq.),  "From  the  begin 
ning  to  the  end  of  these  proceedings  law  and  justice  were 
set  at  naught";  ....  that  the  "President  should 
have  rescinded  the  sentence  and  released  Vallaridigham" ; 
.  .  .  .  that  "we  may  wish  that  the  occasion  had 
not  arisen";  ....  that  (p.  251)  "a  large  portion 
of  the  Republican  press  of  the  East  condemned  Vallan 
digham 's  arrest  arid  the  tribunal  before  which  he  was 
arraigned."  He  quotes  heavy  censure  of  it  by  Justice 
David  Davis,  Lincoln's  intimate  friend,  recorded  in  the 
Milligan  case,  ending  his  warning  of  the  danger  of  such  a 
precedent  with  the  words,  "  The  dangers  to  human  liberty 
are  frightful  to  contemplate."3 

Rhodes  says  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  252)  that  "the  nomination 
for  Governor  now  came  to  Vallandigham  spontaneously 
and  with  almost  the  unanimous  voice  of  an  earnest  and 
enthusiastic  convention";  ....  that  "the  issue 
had  come  to  be  Vallandigham  or  Lincoln";  and  Rhodes 
quotes  John  Sherman  as  follows:  "The  canvass  in  Ohio  is 
substantially  between  the  Government  and  the  Rebellion." 
Rhodes  says  (p.  412),  "Lincoln  was  termed  a  usurper 
and  a  despot";  ....  and  (p.  414)  .  .  .  . 
"the  Vallandigham  meetings  were  such  impressive  out 
pourings  of  the  people,"  ....  while  .  .  .  . 
"the  Republican  meetings  fell  short  probably  in  numbers 

3N.  B. — What  a  political  opponent,  Col.  A.  K.  McClure,  says  of  Vallandig 
ham  in  his  Recollections  of  Half  a  Century,  copyright,  1902,  p.  231;  "There  was 
not  a  single  blemish  on  his  public  or  private  life  until  he  became  involved — in 
sensibly  involved — in  violent  hostility  to  the  Government." 


158  The  Real  Lincoln. 

of  those  who  gathered  out  of  warm  sympathy  with  the 
cause  of  Vallandigham." 

To  many  it  is  a  new  and  strange  idea  that  there  was  any 
strong  leaning  to  the  South  in  Ohio,  but  a  book  notice  in 
the  New  York  World  of  June  15th,  1901,  refers,  as  to  a 
familar  theme,  to  "the  story  of  Cincinnati  in  the  time  of 
those  September  days  when  the  city  was  the  centre  of 
a  Confederate  plot,  participated  in  by  outsiders  and  in 
siders;  ....  that  by  the  dividing  line  of  the  causes 
brother  is  set  against  brother."  The  evidence  of  a  loyal 
Governor  seems  conclusive. 

In  The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  Serial  No.  125,  p.  599,  John 
Brough,  Governor  of  Ohio,  writes  Secretary  Stanton, 
August  9,  1864,  "Recruiting  progresses  slowly.  There 
will  be  a  heavy  draft,  and  strong  organizations  are  making 
to  resist  its  enforcement.  There  is  no  sensational  alarm 
in  this.  Force,  and  a  good  deal  of  it,  will  be  required 

to  overawe  the  resistance  party What  is 

your  view  in  regard  to  it?  .  .  .  .  There  must  be 
not  less  than  10,000  to  15,000  men  under  arms  in  Ohio 
in  September  if  the  draft  is  to  be  enforced."  We  have, 
besides,  the  testimony  of  General  Grant  (Personal  Memoir, 
p.  24  and  p.  35):  "Georgetown,  ....  county- 
seat  of  Brown  county,  ....  is,  and  has  been  from 
its  earliest  existence,  a  Democratic  town.  There  was 
probably  no  time  during  the  rebellion  when,  if  the  oppor 
tunity  could  have  been  afforded,  it  would  not  have  voted 
for  Jefferson  Davis  for  President  of  the  United  States  over 
Mr.  Lincoln  or  any  other  representative  of  his  party,  un 
less  it  was  just  after  Morgan's  raid There 

were  (p.  36)  churches  in  that  part  of  Ohio  where  treason 
was  regularly  preached,  and  where,  to  secure  membership, 


The  Real  Lincoln.  159 

hostility  to  the  Government,  to  the  war,  and  to  the  libera 
tion  of  slaves,  was  far  more  essential  than  a  belief  in  the 
authenticity  or  credibility  of  the  Bible." 

Part  of  what  has  been  shown  about  the  attitude  of  In 
diana  and  Ohio  was  shown  to  be  true  about  Illinois,  too. 
Dr.  Holland  says  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  67)  that  in  1830 
the  " prevailing  sentiment  "  of  Illinois  was  "in  favor  of 
slavery."  Nicolay  and  Hay  quote  (Abraham  Lincoln, 
Vol.  I.,  pp.  140  and  141)  pro-slavery  action  of  the  Legis 
lature  of  Illinois,  3rd  March,  1837,  saying  that  Congress 
had  no  power  to  interfere  with  slavery  except  in  the 
District,  and  not  there  unless  at  the  request  of  the  people 
of  the  District.  Nicolay  and  Hay  show  at  some  length 
(Vol.  I.,  p.  143,  et  seq.)  a  very  nearly  successful  effort 
made  by  the  Illinois  Legislature  in  1822-3  "to  open  the 
State  to  slavery,"  and  say  that  "the  apologists  of  slavery, 
beaten  in  the  canvass,  were  more  successful  in  the  field 
of  public  opinion.  In  the  reaction  which  succeeded  the 
triumph  of  the  anti-slavery  party  it  seemed  as  if  there 
had  never  been  any  anti-slavery  sentiment." 

Fowlke  gives  (Life  of  Oliver  P.  Morton,  Vol.  I.,  p.  229 
and  p.  230)  numerous  resolutions  offered  and  some  resolu 
tions  passed,  in  the  Illinois  General  Assembly,  in  January, 
1863,  against  emancipation  ....  and  against  the 
conscription.  Ida  Tarbell  says4  that  "among  the  things 
that  told  Lincoln  the  seriousness  of  the  situation,  before 
he  took  his  seat,  ....  was  the  averted  faces  of 
his  townsmen  of  Southern  sympathies." 

It  has  been  shown  how  Chicago  resented  and  success 
fully  resisted  the  suppression  of  the  Chicago  Times,  a  paper 
about  which  Rhodes  quotes  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  253,  note)  from 

*McClure's  Magazine  for  1899,  p.  167. 


160  The  Real  Lincoln. 

a  Provost  Marshal's  report,  "  It  would  not  have  needed  to 
change  its  course  an  atom  if  its  place  of  publication  had 
been  Richmond  or  Charleston  instead  of  Chicago." 

Governor  Yates,  of  Illinois,  wrote  Secretary  Stanton,5 
"  I  have  the  best  reasons  for  believing  that  a  draft  if  made 
will  be  resisted  in  this  State,"  and  asks  arms  for  10,000 
infantry  and  five  batteries  of  artillery  to  put  it  down. 
And  again  the  same  wrote  the  same  (Serial  No.  125, 
p.  55S),  "I  must  have  a  district  commander  for  this  State. 
A  large  portion  of  my  time  is  consumed  by  appeals  to  put 
down  disloyal  desperadoes,  against  whom  the  courts  have 
no  protection.  Numbers  of  men  are  now  here  driven  from 
their  homes  by  an  armed  force  of  150  men  in  Fayette 
county."  And  a  third  time  the  same  wires  the  same, 
March  2nd,  1864  (Serial  No.  148),  "Insurrection  in  Edgar 
county,  Illinois.  Union  men  on  one  side,  Copperheads 
on  the  other.  They  have  had  two  battles;  several  killed. 
Please  order  ....  two  companies  ....  to 
put  down  the  disturbance."  .... 

D.  L.  Phillips,  United  State  Marshal,  writes  Secretary 
Seward,  February  22nd,  1862  (Series  II.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  241): 
.  .  .  .  "I  think  that  the  disloyal  in  our  State  feel 
that  they  are  completely  at  my  mercy  unless";  .... 

and  again, It  is  now  well  understood  that 

nothing  but  the  restraining  fear  of  the  marshal's  office  has 
kept  from  deeds  of  violence  a  great  many  men  in  the  Ohio 
and  Wabash  River  counties  of  Illinois. 

*War  of  the  Rebellion,  Serial  No.  124,  p.  627,  August  5,  1863. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

Attitude  of  Pennsylvania  and  New  York. 

JOHN  A.  LOGAN  (The  Great  Conspiracy,  p.  108,  note) 
describes  "in  Philadelphia,  December  13th,  1860,  a 
great  meeting  held  at  the  call  of  the  Mayor  in  Independ 
ence  Square,"  ....  which  offered  the  most  com 
plete  submission  to  the  demands  of  the  South.  Greeley 
quotes  (American  Conflict,  Vol.  I.,  p.  428)  from  the  Phila 
delphia  Pennsylvania^,,  commenting  on  Lincoln's  Inaugural, 
as  follows :  "  Let  the  Border  States  submit  ignominiously 
to  the  abolition  rule  of  this  Lincoln  Administration  if 
they  like,  but  don't  let  the  miserable  submissionists  pre 
tend  to  be  deceived.  Make  any  cowardly  excuse  but 
this."  Allen's  Life,  &c.,  of  Phillips  Brooks  tells  (Vol.  I., 
p.  448)  of  Philadelphia's  ....  "avowed  hostility 
towards  the  Government  in  its  prosecution  of  the  war. 
That  such  sentiments  towards  Lincoln  and  his  Administra 
tion  did  exist  in  Philadelphia  is  evident,  but  it  should  also 
be  said  that  the  same  apathy  or  hostility  might  be  found 
in  the  Northern  cities,  in  New  York  and  in  Boston."  On 
the  same  page  Brooks  writes,  in  a  letter,  deploring  that  he 
found  in  Jersey  an  opposition  that  "made  the  State  dis 
graceful."  A  deliberate  refusal  of  a  large  mass  of  orga 
nized  soldiers  to  advance,  in  the  midst  of  the  war,  is  as 
conclusive  proof  of  their  "disloyalty"  as  can  be  conceived, 
yet  four  thousand  Pennsylvanians  took  that  desperate 
stand,  as  the  following  shows:  A  letter1  of  September 

1  War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate 
Armies,  Series  I.,  Vol.  XIX.,  Part  II,  p.  329,)  of  September  18,  1862, 
11  (161) 


162  The  Real  Lincoln. 

18th,  1862,  from  Hagerstown  to  Major-Gerieral  H.  W. 
Halleck,  General  in  Chief,  signed  by  I.  Vogdes,  Major, 
says,  "A  large  portion  of  the  Pennsylvania  Militia,  now 
here,  have  declined  to  move  forward  as  requested  by 

General  McClellan About  2,500  have  gone, 

but  the  10th,  llth,  12th,  13th,  and  15th,  numbering 
about  800  each,  decline  to  proceed.  The  14th  has  not 
finally  decided  whether  to  go  or  not.  Governor  Curtin 
has  just  arrived,  and  may  induce  the  troops  to  advance." 
In  the  same  volume,  p.  629,  is  shown  the  daring  resist 
ance  of  the  Pennsylvanians  to  the  draft.  Major-General 
D.  N.  Couch  writes  Provost-Marshal-General  J.  B.  Fry, 
August  5th,  1863,  "I  have  two  regiments  and  a  battery 
at  East  Pottsville  and  Scranton  and  vicinity.  My  idea 
is  that  the  enrollment  can  be  completed  with  present 
force.  I  think  it  should  be  increased  when  the  drafted 
men  are  taken."  In  the  same  volume,  at  pp.  321,  324,  and 
325,  are  reports  of  Provost  Marshals  to  their  Chief  in 
Washington  of  forcible  resistance  to  the  draft,  .  .  .  and 
of  all  refusing  to  be  enrollers,  in  the  year  1863.  In  the 
same  great  Record  (Series  III.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  735)  the  Adju 
tant-General  of  Pennsylvania  wrote  Secretary  Stanton: 
"  Of  the  draft  in  this  State  about  one-fourth  has  not  been 
delivered,  and  the  State  is  powerless  to  deliver  them. 
.  .  .  .  Of  those  delivered  ....  very  many  are 
totally  unfit  for  service."  The  Adjutant-General  would 
seem  final  authority  in  the  matter,  and  it  must  have  been 
the  will  of  the  people  of  the  State  that  made  the  State  "  pow 
erless."  But  see  further  confirmation.  Capt.  Richard  I. 
Dodge,  Acting  Assistant  Provost  Marshal  General,  writes 
(Serial  No.  125)  to  General  Fry,  Provost  Marshal  General, 
August  10th,  1864:  "In  several  counties  of  the  Western 


The  Real  Lincoln.  163 

Division  of  Pennsylvania,  particularly  in  Columbia  and 
Cambria,  I  am  credibly  informed  that  there  are  large 
bands  of  deserters  and  delinquent  drafted  men  banded 
together,  armed  and  organized  for  resistance  to  the  United 
States  authorities.  The  organization  in  Columbia  county 
alone  numbers  about  500  men;  in  Cambria  it  is  said  to  be 
larger.  These  men  are  encouraged  in  their  course  and 
assisted  by  every  means  by  the  political  opponents  of  the 
Administration The  Union  men  are  over 
awed  by  the  organized  power  of  the  malcontents,  while 
many  who  have  heretofore  been  supporters  of  the  policy 
of  the  Government,  preferring  their  comfort  to  their  prin 
ciples,  are  going  over  to  its  enemies.  Several  deputations 
and  committees  have  called  upon  me,  representing  these 
facts  in  the  strongest  light."  General  Whipple  reports,2 
August  9th,  1863,  the  need  of  more  soldiers  for  the  draft 
in  Schuylkill  county,  Pennsylvania,  and  describes  how 
a  force  of  about  3,000  was  intimidated  from  attacking 
the  47th  Pennsylvania  Militia  at  Minersville  "by  the 
opportune  arrival  of  a  re-enforcement  of  a  battery  of 
field  artillery  and  four  companies  of  infantry." 

These  are  no  irresponsible  sources  of  information.  See 
next  the  evidence  of  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania,  He 
wrote3  to  Stanton,  Secretary  of  War,  October  23rd,  1862, 
that  "  the  organization  to  resist  the  draft  in  Schuylkill, 
Luzerne,  and  Carbon  counties  is  very  formidable.  There 
are  several  thousand  in  arms  and  the  people  who  will  not 
join  have  been  driven  from  the  county.  They  will  not 
permit  the  drafted  men,  who  are  willing,  to  leave,  and 

2War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Serial  number  124.     For  the  later  volumes  the  serial 
number  suffices. 

3War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Series  I.,  Vol.  XIX.,  Part  II.,  p.  493. 


164  The  Real  Lincoln. 

yesterday  forced  them  to  get  out  of  the  cars.  I  wish  to 
crush  the  resistance  so  effectually  that  the  like  will  not 
occur  again.  One  thousand  regulars  would  be  most  effi 
cient."  His  need  for  "regulars"  is  explained  on  the  next 
page  by  the  answer  of  Gen.  Jno.  E.  Wool  to  General  Hal- 
leek's  order  to  help  Governor  Curtin,  that  the  108th 
New  York  Volunteers  have  killed  an  engineer  and  are 
threatening  "other  injuries  to  passing  trains/'  so  that  he 
had  removed  it  from  the  Relay  House  to  Washington, 
"where  it  would  do  no  harm." 

As  to  New  York  city,  it  has  ever  since  been  made  a 
reproach  to  it  by  Republicans  that  Mayor  Wood  proposed, 
before  the  war  began,  that  the  city  of  New  York  should 
announce  herself  an  independent  republic,  rather  than 
side  with  the  President.  Even  soldiers  of  New  York  State 
who  had  volunteered  were  "disloyal."  Gen.  B.  F.  But 
ler's  farewell  to  his  command  at  Fort  Monroe,  Virginia,  of 
August  18th,  1861,  gives4  curiously  qualified  commenda 
tion  "  to  the  men  and  a  large  portion  of  the  officers  of  the 
20th  New  York  Volunteers,  and  to  the  officers  arid  true 
men  of  the  1st  New  York  Volunteers,  who  have  withstood 
the  misrepresentation  of  newspapers,  the  appeals  of  parti 
sans  and  politicians,  and  the  ill-judged  advice  of  friends 
at  home,  ....  and  remained  loyal  to  the  flag  of 
their  country.  Very  great  credit  is  due  them." 

Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  tells  us  (History  of  the  United 
States,  Vol.  II.,  p.  65,  et  seq.),  "A  Democratic  Convention 
met  at  Albany  in  January,  1861,  to  protest  against  forci 
ble  measures.  The  sentiment  that  if  force  were  to  be 
used  it  should  be  'inaugurated  at  home/  here  evoked  hearty 

*War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the   Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  I.,  Vol.  V.,  p.  601. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  165 

response.  There  were  signs  of  even  a  deeper  disaffec 
tion."  .... 

Governor  Horatio  Seymour  had  been  among  the  fore 
most  to  avow  when  the  first  States  seceded  that  the 
South  had  suffered  wrongs  that  justified  her  secession, 
and  to  protest  that  States  should  not  be  pinned  to  the 
Union  with  bayonets.  He  had  enormous  backing,  as  is 
shown  above  and  will  be  further  shown,  in  his  opposition 
as  Governor  to  the  war  and  to  emancipation,  persisted 
in  to  the  end  so  far  as  was  at  all  possible. 

General  Dix  showed  himself  well  informed  about  New 
York  city,  whence  he  wrote  Secretary  Stanton5  in  words 
that  proved  minutely  prophetic:  "Neither  the  State  nor 
the  city  authorities  can  be  counted  on  for  any  aid  in  en 
forcing  the  draft,  and,  while  I  impute  no  such  designs  to 
them,  there  are  men  in  constant  communication  with 
them  who,  I  am  satisfied,  desire  nothing  so  much  as  a 
collision  between  the  State  and  General  Governments  and 
an  insurrection  in  the  North  in  aid  of  the  Southern  rebel 
lion."  Again  General  Dix  wrote,  for  himself,  General 
Canby,  and  the  Mayor  (Serial  No.  124,  p.  671),  "We  are 
of  opinion  that  the  draft  can  be  safely  commenced  in  New 
York  on  Monday  with  a  sufficient  force,  but  there  ought 
to  be  10,000  troops  in  the  city  and  harbor.  There  is 
little  doubt  that  Governor  Seymour  will  do  all  in  his 
power  to  defeat  the  draft  short  of  forcible  resistance  to  it." 

Schouler  makes  the  comprehensive  concession  (History 
of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  417,  et  seq.)  that  the  State 
of  New  York  was  "  obstructive  to  the  President's  wishes" — 
a  mode  of  expression  which  is  significant — and  records 

5War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial  No.  125,  p.  625. 


166  .The  Real  Lincoln.' 

that  Seymour  said  in  his  Inaugural  as  Governor  that 
"the  conscription  act  was  believed  by  one-half  the  people 
of  the  loyal  States  a  violation  of  the  supreme  constitu 
tional  law."  For  Seymour's  view  of  the  purpose  for  which 
that  act  was  procured,  see  Nicolay  and  Hay,  who  record 
(Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  VII.,  p.  22.  and  p.  25)  that  both 
Governor  Seymour  and  Archbishop  Hughes  not  only  made 
friendly  addresses  to  the  mob  that  was  forcibly  stopping 
the  draft  in  New  York  city,  but  manifested  a  measure  of 
sympathy  with  its  purpose;  that  Seymour  in  his  address 
called  the  war  (p.  16,  et  seq.)  "the  ungodly  conflict  that 
is  distracting  the  land,"  and  said  that  the  purpose  of  the 
draft  was  "to  stuff  ballot-boxes  with  bogus  soldier 
votes."  Yet  they  concede  that,  in  spite  of  all  this,  Sey 
mour  was  (pp.  9  to  26)  "  then  and  to  his  death  the  most 
honored  Democratic  politician  in  the  State."  And  this 
is  shown  beyond  all  question  by  the  fact  that  after  the 
war  was  over  he  was  selected  by  the  National  Democratic 
party  as  its  candidate  for  the  presidency.  They  also 
attest  unstintedly  (Vol.  VII.,  p.  13)  Seymour's  integrity 
and  patriotism. 

It  was  just  at  the  time  when  the  great  fight  came  on 
at  Gettysburg  that  the  people  of  the  city  of  New  York 
rose  and  defied  the  Federal  Government — keeping  control 
for  four  days.  It  was  a  mob,  but  they  had  evidence,  as 
shown  above,  of  sympathy  from  the  Governor  and  the 
Catholic  Archbishop,  and  they  accomplished  their  pur 
pose  of  stopping  the  draft,  until  a  month  later  veterans 
were  brought  from  the  Army  of  the  Potomac  and  New 
York  was  made  "  tranquil."  Gorham,  the  latest  biographer 
of  Secretary  Stanton,  says  that  had  Gettysburg  resulted 
differently  New  York  would  have  made  no  submission. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  167 

Rhodes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  320 
to  p.  328)  gives  particulars  of  the  struggle,  "with  a  loss 
in  killed  and  wounded  of  one  thousand,  most  of  whom  were 
of  the  mob."  He  says  (p.  327)  that  the  Provost  Marshal 
"in  charge  of  the  draft  in  New  York/'  Robert  Nugent, 
wrote  "a  notice  over  his  own  name/'  saying,  "The  draft 
has  been  suspended  in  New  York  city  and  Brooklyn/' 
that  this  notice  "appeared  in  nearly  all  the  newspapers, 
and  undoubtedly  was  the  cause  of  the  rioters  returning 
to  their  homes  and  employments.  The  militia  regiments 
which  had  been  sent  to  Pennsylvania  began  to  arrive, 
and  used  harsh  measures  to  repress  the  mobs,  who  still 
with  rash  boldness  confronted  the  lawful  powers.  Can 
non  and  howitzers  raked  the  streets More 

regiments     ....     reached    the    city    and    continued 

without  abatement  the  stern  work The  draft 

was  only  temporarily  suspended.  Strenuous  precautions 
were  taken  to  insure  order  during  its  continuance.  Ten 
thousand  infantry  and  three  batteries  of  artillery — 'picked 
troops,  including  the  regulars' — were  sent  to  New  York 
city  from  the  Army  of  the  Potomac. ' '  Of  course  the  ex 
ample  made  of  New  York  told  elsewhere.  Rhodes  says 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  328,  note), 
"Riots  in  resistance  to  the  draft  broke  out  in  Boston  and 
in  Troy,  but  were  speedily  suppressed."  The  temper  of 
the  people  of  the  interior  of  the  State  and  the  methods 
used  for  repressing  it  are  shown  in  the  following:  W.  A. 
Dart,6  after  procuring  from  the  Postmaster-General  the 
exclusion  from  the  mails  of  the  Gazette  of  Franklin  county, 
New  York,  got  the  two  editors,  the  Franklin  brothers, 
imprisoned  in  Fort  Lafayette  by  Secretary  Seward.  One 

6War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Series  IT.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  941. 


168  The  Real  Lincoln. 

of  them  had  been  a  judge  and  member  of  the  Constitu 
tional  Convention.  They  had  found  readers  and  listeners 
in  their  work,  "  proving  to  the  people  of  Franklin  county, 
through  the  columns  of  the  Gazette  by  letter  and  in  public 
speeches  at  meetings  called  for  that  purpose,  that  the 
Southern  States  had  a  right  to  secede  and  that  the  prose 
cution  of  the  war  on  the  part  of  the  North  was  aggressive 
and  wrong,  and  that  the  South  was  really  occupying  the 
position  now  that  the  original  States  did  in  the  war  of 
the  Revolution."  Dart  further  writes  Seward  "that 
whole  county  has  raised  but  one  company  of  volunteers 
for  the  war,  and  in  several  of  the  towns  nearly  as  many 
persons  could  be  enlisted  for  the  Southern  Confederacy 
as  could  be  for  the  United  States." 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

Attitude  of  Iowa  and  of  Other  States. 

rpHE  case  of  Wm.  H.  Hill1  gives  evidence  of  the  feeling 
J-  of  the  people  of  Iowa  between  December,  1861, 
and  April,  1862,  as  to  the  guilt  of  Southern  sympa 
thizers,  and  as  to  the  government's  mode  of  repressing 
such  sympathy,  as  follows:  United  States  Marshal  Hoxie 
and  Governor  Kirkwood  report  (p.  1322-1324)  to  Secre 
tary  Seward  clear  proof  of  Hill's  guilt,  but  say  that  he  will 
be  cleared  by  the  jury,  who  are  "in  sympathy  with  the 
rebels."  Seward  (p.  1325)  has  him  arrested  and  con 
fined  in  Fort  Lafayette  "as  soon  as  he  is  discharged  from 
civil  custody."  Hoxie  complains  to  Seward  (p.  1327) 
that  the  Davenport  Democrat  and  News  is  reporting  to  its 
Iowa  readers  "the  movements  of  the  scoundrel  Hoxie 
and  his  kidnapped  prisoner,  Hill."  The  whole  Iowa  dele 
gation,  Senate  (p.  1331)  and  House  (1337),  urge  Hill's 
release,  and  he  is  released,  but  on  condition  (p.  1339)  that 
he  withdraw  his  prosecution  of  Hoxie,  which  would  have 
to  be  tried  before  an  Iowa  jury.  General  Halleck,  com 
manding  in  Iowra,  wTites  Hoxie  (p.  1334) :  "  I  permit  the 
newspapers  to  abuse  me  to  their  hearts'  content,  and  I 
advise  you  to  do  the  same." 

H.  M.  Hoxie,  United  States  Marshal  of  the  District  of 
Iowa,  writes  Secretary  Seward  in  December,  1861  (Series 
II.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  1322),  "The  accused  will  not  be  found 
guilty,  though  of  his  guilt  there  can  be  no  question.  There 

lWar  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  II.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  1321  to  p.  1339. 

(169) 


170  The  Real  Lincoln. 

is  a  large  secession  element  in  the  jury  selected  to  try  him. 
.  .  .  .  It  would  be  better  for  the  government  to  enter 
a  nolle  and  have  him  committed  to  military  custody  by 
order  of  the  State  Department."  About  the  same  man, 
Wm.  M.  Hill,  the  Governor  of  Iowa,  Kirkwood,  writes 
Secretary  Seward  (p.  1324)  that  "a  conviction  would  be 
at  least  doubtful"  and  that  he  "would  suggest  that  Hill 
be  removed  from  the  State  by  your  order  and  imprisoned 
elsewhere  under  military  authority." 

From  Fairfield,  Iowa,  July  28,  1862,  James  F.  Wilson, 
as  inspector,  reports  to  Secretary  Stan  ton2  that  "Men  in 
this  and  surrounding  counties  are  daily  in  the  habit  of 
denouncing  the  government,  the  war,  and  all  engaged  in 
it,  and  are  doing  all  they  can  to  prevent  enlistments";  and 
gives  as  an  instance  an  account  of  how  a  wounded  officer 
was  driven  out  of  Rome,  in  Henry  county,  from  his  busi 
ness  of  recruiting,  by  threats  of  hanging.  A  year  later 
the  Governor  of  Iowa,  Kirkwood,  forwards  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  a  complaint  of  J.  B.  Grinnell,  who  calls  himself 
"a  war  candidate  for  Congress"  that  "secret  societies  are 
being  organized  to  defy  the  draft  and  the  collection  of 
taxes.  The  traitors  are  armed.  Our  soldiers  are  defense 
less.  We  want  arms."  And  Governor  Stone,  of  Iowa, 
says,3  as  late  as  May  llth,  1864,  of  several  counties  and 
townships  that  they  are  "Copperheads." 

The  Governor  of  Wisconsin  forwards  and  endorses  a 
letter4  dated  August,  1864,  showing  scandalous  fleeing 
from  the  draft  in  Wisconsin  and  Minnesota,  and  military 
preparation  to  resist  the  draft  in  Wisconsin.  At  p.  1010 

2War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the   Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Series  III.,  Vol.  II.,  p.   265  and  p.  403. 

War   of  Rebellion,    &c..   Serial   No.    125. 
4Same   volume   last   quoted,   p.    683. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  171 

of  the  same,  he  asks  from  Washington  aid  to  stop  the 
escape  of  his  people  from  the  draft,  and  says  to  Secretary 
Stanton  in  January,  1865,  that  "The  government  must 
depend  mainly  upon  recruiting  for  its  soldiers.  Out  of 
17,000  drafted  in  this  State  during  the  last  year,  I  am  in 
formed  that  but  about  3,000  are  in  the  service." 

Major  General  Pope,  assigned  to  the  control  of  Wiscon 
sin  after  his  terrible  failure  as  Commander  of  the  Army 
of  the  Potomac,  wrote  August,  1863,5  to  Washington  in 
much  detail,  about  the  resistance  to  the  draft  in  Wiscon 
sin,  and  (p.  639  of  same  volume)  Secretary  Stanton  gives 
him  "six  companies  of  the  Seventh  Cavalry,  temporarily 
to  preserve  the  peace  within  your  State." 

Even  in  Connecticut,  D.  D.  Perkins,  Acting  Assisting 
Provost  Marshal  reports6  from  Hartford,  May  18,  1863, 
that  Governor  Buckingham  "hoped  there  would  be  no 
difficulty  in  completing  the  draft,  but  that  if  there  was  to  be 
any  difficulty  at  all,  it  might  as  well  be  here  as  anywhere." 
And  Fred  H.  Thompson,  Deputy  Collector,  writes  Secre 
tary  Seward7  from  Bridgeport,  Connecticut,  in  January, 
1862,  "This  city  is  the  focus  and  centre  of  the  secession 
sympathizers  in  this  portion  of  Connecticut,"  and  that  it 
has  "a  lodge  of  the  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle."  The 
New  York  Churchman  said8  August  5th,  1899:  "At  the 
breaking  out  of  our  late  civil  war  there  was  in  the  Western 
part  of  Connecticut,  and  extending  into  the  adjoining 
counties  of  New  York,  an  ugly  feeling  of  discontent  against 
what  seemed  to  be  the  policy  of  Mr.  Lincoln  towards  the 
rebelling  States." 

&War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Serial  No.  124,  p.  637  and  p.  638. 

•War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Serial  No.   124. 

''War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Series  II.,  Vol.  II.,  p.  1934. 

8In  a  letter  signed  Henry  Chauncey,  New  York,  headed  Bishop  Williams. 


172  The  Real  Lincoln. 

General  John  A.  Dix  reported  to  Provost  Marshal  Gen 
eral  Fry,9  his  sending  soldiers  to  Oswego  and  Oneida  and 
two  hundred  to  Schenectady  and  that  there  was  no  re 
sistance.  He  goes  on,  "In  the  river  districts,  troops  will 

be  needed In  Albany  and  Ulster  districts, 

I  think  artillery  as  well  as  infantry  will  be  needed  .  .  ." 

Nicolay  and  Hay  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  217) 
record  "deep  seated  disaffection"  in  New  Jersey,  shown  by 
legislation  and  elsewise.  Major  Hill,  2nd  Artillery,  Acting 
Provost  Marshal,  asks10  from  the  Provost  Marshal  General 
at  Washington,  in  August,  1863,  for  soldiers  to  execute 
the  draft  in  Detroit,  Michigan.  Captain  Conner  of  17th 
United  States  Infantry,  reports11  using  soldiers  to  put 
down  resistance  to  the  draft  at  Rutland,  Vermont,  August 
3rd,  1863. 

Governor  Gilmore,  of  New  Hampshire  wrote  Secretary 
Stan  ton12  January  13th,  1864,  of  a  clamor  against  the 
government  and  that  "the  Copperheads  are  jubilant." 
In  the  same  volume,  p.  1188,  the  same  wrote  the  same, 
February  20th,  1865,  what  gives  light  on  the  means  used 
to  fill  the  drafts:  "The  war  news  is  glorious.  Let  us 
have  $200,000,  and  I  will  see  that  our  whole  quota  of  2,072 
men  is  filled  by  the  20th  March.  We  want  the  money  to 
pay  bounties  with  to  fill  our  quota." 

Ropes  says,  "and  though  Maryland,  Kentucky,  and 
Missouri  remained  in  the  Union,13  yet  the  feeling  of  a  con 
siderable  part  of  the  people  in  those  States  in  favor  of  the 
new  movement  was  so  strong — aided  as  it  was  by  the  convic- 

*War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c.,  Serial  No.  124,  p.  665. 

MWar  of  the  Rebellion,  (fee.,  Serial  No.  124,  p.  639. 

"Same  book  as  last  reference,  p.  624  and  p.  625. 

uWar  of  the  Rebellion,   &c.,  Serial   No.    125. 

13But  Missouri  did  secede  October  1,1861,  and  Kentucky  November  20,  1861. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  173 

tion  that  their  States  would  have  seceded,  but  for  the  active 
interference  of  the  United  States  Government — that  the 
Southern  cause  received  substantial  aid  from  each  of  them." 

The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  Series  III.,  Vol.  IV.,  Serial 
No.  125,  pp.  1173-5,  gives  a  memorial  addressed  to  President 
Lincoln,  January  31,  1865,  by  the  Constitutional  Conven 
tion  of  Missouri,  at  St.  Louis.  Among  reasons  why  the 
draft  presses  too  hard  on  Missouri,  they  say  (p.  1174),  "  You 
will  bear  in  mind  that  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  year 
of  this  war  almost,  if  not  quite,  half  our  people  were  dis 
loyal." 

Schouler  says  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  V.,  p. 
508),  "  ....  And  not  without  internal  bitterness 
and  fratricide  were  Delaware,  Kentucky,  Tennessee  and 
Missouri  rescued  from  the  perilous  brink"  of  secession.  It 
may  surprise  us  to  find  Delaware  first  in  Schouler 's  list 
above,  but  the  Appendix  shows  how  very  far  he  was  from 
any  goodwill  to  the  South,  and  Greeley  tells  us  (American 
Conflict,  1864,  Vol.  I,  p.  407)  that  in  Wilmington,  Delaware, 
a  salute  of  a  hundred  guns  was  fired,  at  the  news  of  the 
secession  of  South  Carolina. 

The  Memorial  of  the  Public  Meeting  of  the  Christian 
Men  of  Chicago,  held  September  7th,  1862  (Fund  Publi 
cation,  No.  27,  of  Maryland  Historical  Society,  p.  12), 
states  that  Maryland,  Kentucky  and  Missouri  "have  been 
kept  in  subjection  only  by  overwhelming  military  force." 

Dr.  Holland  gives  (Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  289)  an  expla 
nation  of  what  he  calls  "Mr.  Lincoln's  pacific  policy  at 
this  time."  .  .  .  "an  early  and  decided  war  policy 
would  have  been  morally  certain  to  drive  every  slave  State 
into  the  Confederacy  except  Maryland  and  Delaware,  and 
they  would  only  have  been  retained  by  force." 


174  The  Real  Lincoln. 

About  the  Sons  of  Liberty,  J.  Holt  wrote  to  Stanton 
August  5,  1864,  from  the  Bureau  of  Military  Justice,  a 
report  as  follows.14  He  calls  it  "a  treasonable  organiza 
tion,"  and  says:  .  .  .  "that  its  officers  in  Missouri 
all  occupy  high  social  positions;"  .  .  .  that  it  is 
successor  to  the  Knights  of  the  Golden  Circle,  and  of  the 
Corps  de  Belgique,  and  of  the  Order  of  American  Knights; 
.  .  .  that  it  is  in  complete  sympathy  with  the  rebellion, 
which  it  holds  to  be  justified  and  right;  .  .  .  that  it 
"  exists  alike  in  the  North  and  in  the  South,  Vallandigharn 
being  its  head  in  the  loyal  and  Price  its  head  in  the  dis 
loyal  States;"  .  .  .  that  "the  order  is  numerous  in 
Indiana,  Illinois,  Missouri,  Ohio,  Kentucky  and  New  York, 
and  exists  in  several  of  the  other  States.  In  St.  Louis  it 
is  estimated  that  the  membership  amounts  to  5,000;  in 
Missouri  to  some  40,000  or  50,000.  In  Indiana  a  strength 
much  beyond  this  is  assigned  to  it.  It  is  understood  that 
Governor  Brough  supposes  25,000  of  the  order  to  be  around 
in  Ohio.  They  are  believed  to  be  armed  in  large  propor 
tion  in  Indiana,  Illinois  and  Missouri,  but  in  less  propor 
tion  in  Kentucky  and  New  York." 

General  Halleck,  Military  Adviser  of  the  President, 
and  General  in  Chief,  wrote  General  Grant  from  Washington 
April  12,  1864,  the  following,15  which  shows  conclusively, 
considering  the  writer  and  the  official  he  addressed,  a  very 
serious  disloyalty  in  three  States:  "I  have  just  received 
General  Heintzelman's  report  on  General  Burbaze's  tele 
gram  in  regard  to  arresting  certain  persons  in  Ohio,  Indi 
ana  and  Illinois.  General  Heintzelman  does  not  deem  it 

l*War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial  No.  125,  pp.  577-579. 

l5War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  Union  and  Confederate  Armies,  Serial 
No.  125,  p.  613. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  175 

prudent  to  make  arrests  at  the  present  time,  as  a  rescue 
would  probably  be  attempted,  and  his  force  is  not  sufficient 
to  put  down  an  insurrection.  He  thinks  there  will  be  a 
forcible  resistance  to  the  draft,  and  greatly  fears  disturb 
ances  before  that  time.  He  does  not  deem  the  prisoners 
of  war  as  secure,  and  thinks  a  combination  has  been  formed 
to  release  them  and  seize  the  arsenals.  To  provide  against 
this,  he  wants  10,000  men  in  each  of  the  States  of  Indiana 
and  Illinois,  and  5,000  in  Ohio. 

"General  Pope  and  the  Provost  Marshal  of  Wisconsin 
report  that  there  will  be  armed  resistance  to  the  draft  in 
that  State.  ...  I  think  much  importance  should  be 
attached  to  the  representations  of  General  Heintzelman 
in  regard  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  West." 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

Purpose  of  Emancipation. 

rpHE  purpose  and  expectation  with  which  Lincoln 
-•-  issued  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  has  been 
questioned  and  discussed  as  follows:  Burgess  says  (The 
Civil  War  and  the  Constitution,  p.  16  or  118)  of  Lin 
coln's  Emancipation  Proclamation,  "It  contained  para 
graphs  which  might  fairly  be  interpreted,  and  were  so 
interpreted  by  the  Confederates,  as  inciting  the  negroes 
to  rise  against  their  masters,  thus  exposing  to  all  the  hor 
rors  of  a  servile  insurrection,  with  its  accompaniment  of 
murder  and  outrage,  the  farms  and  plantations  where 
the  women  and  children  of  the  South  lived  lonely  and 
unprotected."  Burgess  offers  a  labored  defense  (Vol.  II., 
p.  16,  et  seq.)  against  the  charge  that  Lincoln's  purpose 
was  slave  insurrection,  or  "at  least  that  Lincoln  saw  that 
the  inevitable  result  of  his  act  would  be  slave  insurrec 
tion";  and  Burgess  fully  concedes  that  the  incitement  of 
slaves  to  massacres  of  their  masters  would  be  not  only 
immoral,  but  positively  " barbaric."  And  Burgess  adds 
(p.  118),  still  in  the  line  of  apology,  "It  is  to  be  regretted 
that  the  questions  at  issue  between  the  Union  and  the 
Confederacy  could  not  have  been  fought  out,  when  ap 
pealed  to  the  trial  of  arms,  by  the  whites  only;  but  it  is 
difficult  to  demonstrate  the  immorality  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
order  upon  this  subject." 

It  is  not  difficult  to  understand  why  servile  insurrection, 
with  all  its  horrors,  was  expected  by  people  outside  of  the 

(176) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  Ill 

South.  The  slavery  in  the  South  had  been  pictured  to 
the  world  very  falsely — notably  by  Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher 
Stowe  in  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin;  nor  is  it  difficult  to  explain 
why  the  expectation  of  the  horrors  of  servile  insurrection 
was  disappointed,  but  the  explanation  is  too  long  for 
this  page,  and  will  be  found  in  a  note  below.1 

Arming  the  slaves  was  one  of  the  methods  adopted  to 
suppress  "disloyalty."  To  arm  slaves  against  their  mas 
ters,  with  the  horrors  that  may  be  expected  to  result,  has 
been  accounted  barbarity.  The  French  have  been  bitterly 


*It  is  a  graceless  task,  in  this  twentieth  century,  to  say  anything  that  looks 
like  a  defense,  or  even  an  apology,  for  slavery;  but  the  proverb  tells  us  to  give  even 
the  devil  his  due,  and  on  that  ground,  at  least,  those  who  most  hate  the  memory 
of  slavery  may  listen  to  the  following  suggestions.  They  are  submitted  that  the 
children  of  slaveholders  may  be  saved  from  being  betrayed  into  the  error  of  regard 
ing  with  reprobation  the  conduct  of  their  parents  in  holding  slaves. 

Those  who  rejoice  most  in  the  emancipation  of  the  negroes  must  find  a  serious 
check  in  their  exultation  if  they  open  their  eyes  to  some  of  the  chief  changes  in 
the  condition  of  the  negro  race  since  its  emancipation. 

The  negro  slave  was  a  highly  valued  member  of  the  body  politic;  a  tiller  of 
the  soil,  whose  services  could  be  counted  on  when  the  crop  was  pitched,  and  a  laborer 
who  furnished  to  all  his  fellows,  young  and  old,  sick  and  well,  a  more  liberal  supply 
of  the  necessaries  of  life  than  was  ever  granted  to  any  other  laboring  class  in  any 
other  place  or  any  other  age.  Arid  in  what  the  Economists  call  the  distribution 
of  the  wealth  that  was  produced  by  the  negro's  labor  and  the  skill  of  the  master 
who  guided  and  restrained  him,  the  share  the  master  took  was  small  indeed  com 
pared  with  what  the  Captains  of  Industry  took  in  the  free  society  of  the  same  day. 
Compared  with  the  share  those  Captains  take  now,  the  modest  share  taken  by  the 
masters  was  what  the  magnates  of  to-day  would  scorn  to  consider.  The  negro  lived, 
too,  in  cheerful  ignorance  of  the  ills  for  which  he  has  been  so  much  pitied.  One 
is  startled  now  to  hear  the  cheerful  whistle  or  the  loud  outburst  of  song  from  a  negro 
that  once  was  heard  on  every  hand,  night  and  day.  Nor  was  his  attitude  one  of 
mere  resignation  to  his  lot.  That  it  was  one  of  hearty  goodwill  to  the  masters 
was  conclusively  shown  during  the  war  between  the  States.  A.  distinguished 
Northern  writer  has  lately  invited  attention  to  the  indisputable  fact  that  the  ne 
groes  could  have  ended  the  war  during  any  one  day  or  night  that  it  lasted.  And 
the  kindly  attitude  of  the  negro  to  the  master  was  shown  not  negatively  only,  not 
by  forbearance  only.  Not  only  did  a  vast  majority  of  them  stay  at  their  posts, 
working  to  feed  and  watching  to  protect  the  families  of  the  absent  soldiers — when 
all  the  able-bodied  white  men  were  absent  soldiers — but  after  their  emancipation 
ten  thousand  examples  occurred  of  respectful  and  grateful  and  even  generous 
conduct  to  their  late  masters  for  one  instance  where  a  revengeful  or  a  reproachful 
or  even  disrespectful  demonstration  was  made.  Of  the  few  survivors  of  those 

12 


178  The  Real  Lincoln. 

denounced  by  American  historians  for  arming  the  Indians 
against  the  early  English  settlers  in  America.  Did  the 
people  of  the  North  and  West  approve  of  arming  the 
slaves  against  their  Southern  masters?  What  was  Lin 
coln's  purpose  and  expectation  in  doing  it? 

Greeley  says  (American  Conflict,  Vol.  I.,  p. 527)  that 
the  "repugnance  in  Congress  and  in  the  press,  and  among 
the  people,  to  arming  the  blacks,  was  quite  as  acrid,  per- 


who  stood  in  the  relation  of  master  and  slave,  a  considerable  number  still  maintain 
relations  of  strong  and  often  tender  friendship.  John  Stuart  Mill  worshipped 
liberty  and  detested  slavery,  but  he  confessed  that  the  goodwill  of  the  slaves  to 
the  master  was  to  him  inexplicable.  And  all  this  is  none  the  less  true,  if  all  be 
granted  as  true  about  the  abuses  of  slavery  that  Mrs.  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe  painted 
in  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin  arid  in  the  Key  to  Uncle  Tom's  Cabin.  Abuses  no  less  vile 
and  on  a  far  greater  scale  have  occurred  and  still  occur  in  England  and  in  America, 
with  all  their  boasts  of  freedom;  not  to  speak  of  late  occurrences  in  South  Africa 
and  in  the  Philippines. 

To-day  the  negro  is  a  formidable  danger  to  the  State  and  to  society,  and  a 
danger  that  threatens  only  too  surely  to  become  constantly  a  greater  danger. 
Elaboration  of  this  proposition  is  unnecessary. 

The  curious  may  still  see  a  manuscript  letter  in  which  Peter  Minor,  of  Peters 
burg,  Virginia,  frankly  tells  his  nephew,  John  Minor,  of  Fredericksburg,  that  the 
Virginia  Legislature  did  right  in  rejecting  a  bill  the  nephew  had  proposed  for  the 
emancipation  of  the  negroes,  and  says  that  they  had  as  well  turn  loose  bears  and 
lions  among  the  people.  The  Virginians  of  that  day  were  as  ardent  lovers  of  all 
attainable  liberty  as  the  Virginians  of  the  sixties,  whose  conduct  in  the  war  between 
the  States  has  at  last  extorted  high  praise  even  from  such  a  representative  of  the 
best  product  of  New  England  as  Mr.  Charles  Francis  Adams,  son  of  Mr.  Lincoln's 
Minister  to  England.  The  Virginians  of  a  still  earlier  day,  with  other  Southern 
leaders,  notably  the  Georgians,  had  striven  often  and  in  vain  to  get  the  importa 
tion  of  slaves  stopped,  but  Parliament  before  the  Revolution  and  Congress  after 
wards  listened  to  the  owners  of  the  slave-ships  of  Old  England  and  New  England 
and  continued  the  slave  trade.  Many  of  the  fortunes  that  now  startle  us  with 
their  splendor  in  Newport,  R.  I.,  had  their  origin  in  the  slave  trade,  and  the  social 
magnates  who  have  inherited  these  fortunes  might  take  with  perfect  right  as  their 
coat  of  arms  a  handcuffed  negro,  the  design  which  Queen  Elizabeth  gave  to  Captain 
John  Hawkins  for  his  escutcheon,  when  she  knighted  him  as  a  reward  for  the  bene 
fit  that  he  had  conferred  on  Christendom  in  orginating  the  slave  trade  from  the 
coast  of  Africa  to  America.  John  Fiske  tells  us  the  story. 

But  the  Virginians  knew  the  negro.  Although  his  industrial  education  on 
the  Southern  plantations  had  raised  him  far  above  the  bloody  and  cannibalistic 
barbarism  of  his  home  in  Africa,  the  Virginians  knew  that  to  emancipate  him  as 
the  chivalrous  young  legislator  proposed  would  be  to  "turn  loose  lions  and  bears 
among  them,"  as  old  Peter  Minor  said.  They  foresaw  one  of  the  consequences 
of  emancipation — the  danger  to  which  a  hundred  thousand  husbands  and  fathers 
of  the  South  must  to-day  leave  their  homes  exposed  if  they  leave  them  unguarded 


The  Real  Lincoln.  179 

tinacious,  and  denunciatory  as  that  which  had  been  excited 
by  the  policy  of  emancipation."  We  have  seen  how  very 
acrid  and  pertinacious  that  repugnance  was. 

James  C.  Welling  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  521) 
quotes  the  diary  of  Secretary  Chase  to  prove  that  on  the 
21st  of  July,  1862,  in  a  Cabinet  meeting,  "  the  President 
expressed  himself  as  averse  to  arming  the  negroes  .  .  .;" 
and  Welling  shows  by  the  same  diary  of  the  3rd  August, 

for  an  hour.  Each  day's  newspapers  make  it  impossible  to  deny  this  state  of  things. 
All  Christendom  is  crying  shame  on  the  barbarous  lynchings  that  are  occurring 
in  the  States  of  the  North  as  well  as  of  the  South,  but  even  New  England  must 
concede  that  the  provocation  in  the  North  is  trifling  compared  with  that  in  the 
South.  Since  President  Roosevelt  has  twice  suggested  the  barbarities  practiced 
by  Filipinos  as  palliation  for  the  guilt  of  the  tortures  which  so  many  of  his  soldiers 
have  been  convicted  of  using  on  "insurgent"  Filipinos,  none  should  forget  the 
provocation,  without  a  parallel  in  history,  for  the  lynchings  in  the  Southern  States. 

A  suggestion  from  Grover  Cleveland  has  great  weight  with  many  good  and 
wise  men,  but  some  curious  and  interesting  recollections  are  suggested  by  his  recom 
mendation  in  a  late  address  "that  technical  schools  for  negroes  be  dotted  all  over 
the  South."  A  very  elaborate  exposition  of  the  need  for  technical  education  of 
the  people  in  place  of  the  kind  that  has  been  till  now  given  was  published  some  years 
since  as  a  report  of  the  Department  of  Education  at  Washington  with  all  the  authen 
tication  that  the  Government  could  give  it,  and  its  recommendations  have  been 
largely  adopted.  In  setting  forth  the  need  for  this  great  change  this  report  declares 
that  the  existing  public-school  system  is  such  a  failure  that  something  radically 
different  must  be  substituted  for  it.  The  concession  of  failure  is  hardly  less  com 
plete  than  that  lately  made  by  another  authority  of  the  very  highest  rank,  Presi 
dent  Elliott,  of  Harvard  University,  in  addresses  made  to  two  great  educational 
assemblies  in  two  New  England  States.  Incidentally  the  report  makes  another 
concession,  and  it  is,  as  is  said  above,  curious  and  interesting  to  compare  it  with 
what  Mr.  Cleveland  now  proposes  as  the  cure  for  the  country's  grievous  embarrass 
ment  about  the  emancipated  negro.  , 

The  authoritative  document  referred  to  above,  issued  by  the  Government  in 
Washington  for  the  instruction  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  expressly  de 
clares  that  the  best  technical  education  that  the  world  has  ever  seen  or  can  ever 
hope  to  see  was  the  education  that  was  given  by  their  masters  to  the  negroes  before 
their  emancipation.  There  was  good  reason  why  it  should  be  so.  Every  boy  and 
every  girl  was  set  to  such  work  as  each  was  best  fitted  for  and  taught  to  do  it  well ; 
for  the  teaching  was  riot  done  by  a  salaried  official  with  the  inefficiency  so  familiar 
to  us  all,  but  by  a  person  strongly  prompted  by  interest  to  make  the  teaching  suc 
cessful  and  having  power  to  enforce  exertion  in  the  pupil,  while  he  or  she  was  at 
the  same  time  strongly  restrained  by  self-interest  from  impairing  the  health  of 
the  pupil  by  work  at  too  early  an  age  or  too  hard  work  or  too  dangerous  work  at 
any  age.  Is  not  this  in  strange  contrast  with  the  "free"  labor  of  to-day,  when 
such  strong  protests  are  urged  every  day  against  child  labor,  overwork  and  danger 
ous  work  in  the  factories  and  the  mines  of  the  North  and  South? 


180  The  Real  Lincoln. 

1862,  that  the  President  said,  on  the  same  question,  that 
he  "was  pretty  well  cured  of  any  objection  to  any  measure, 
except  want  of  adaptedness  to  putting  down  the  rebel 
lion." 

It  was  a  deliberate  conclusion,  for  Holland  quotes 
(Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  391)  a  letter  of  Lincoln's  to  A.  G. 
Hodges,  of  Frankfort,  Kentucky,  April  4,  1864,  .  . 
"  I  believed  the  indispensable  necessity  for  military  eman 
cipation  and  arming  the  blacks  would  come."  .  .  .  We 
have  further  light  how  it  was  regarded  in  an  extract  given 
by  Rhodes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  333), 
from  an  address  of  Major  Higginson  at  Cambridge  in  1897, 
"for  at  that  date  (February,  1863)  plenty  of  good  people 
frowned  on  the  use  of  colored  troops."  We  have  Lin 
coln's  own  statement  of  the  public  mind  about  it,  quoted 
by  Rhodes  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  334): 
"I  was  opposed  on  nearly  every  side  when  I  first  favored 
the  raising  of  colored  regiments,"  said  President  Lincoln 
to  General  Grant,  "  and  no  one  can  appreciate  the  heroism 


One  of  the  worst  of  the  many  reproaches  brought  against  the  slaveowner  by 
the  abolitionist  was  the  allegation  that  he  denied  his  slave  education.  Is  it  not 
curious  to  observe  that  the  highest  authorities  now  say  that  it  is  necessary  to  change 
the  existing  system  of  education  to  one  radically  different,  and  to  learn  that  the 
highest  authority  in  the  United  States,  the  Department  of  Education,  has  conceded 
that  the  technical  education  to  which  we  are  turning  had  attained  its  highest  per 
fection  in  the  system  of  slavery  which  has  disappeared? 

Another  truth  about  slavery  seems  to  have  escaped  the  observation  of  all. 
No  one  will  deny  that  the  evils  of  drunkenness  are  among  the  greatest  that  society 
has  to  encounter.  It  is  needless  to  recite  them.  It  is  no  less  incontestable  that 
nineteen-twentieths  of  these  evils  fall  on  the  laboring  class.  The  drunken  laborer 
brings  the  miseries  of  cold  and  hunger  and  death  from  want  upon  mothers,  sisters, 
wives,  widows  and  children.  Drink  hurt  the  health  of  an  exceedingly  small  num 
ber  of  the  negro  slaves  and  the  life  of  almost  none.  And  when  disabling  sickness 
or  death  from  that  or  from  any  other  cause  did  come,  it  made  no  difference  at  all 
in  the  supply  of  food,  clothing,  fire,  doctors  or  nurses  to  the  aged,  the  women  or 
the  children. 

Some  tender  hearts  who  do  not  deserve  to  be  called  sentimental  will  be  re 
volted  at  the  claims  suggested  in  this  paper  of  such  benevolent  functions  for  slavery, 
but  only  by  closing  their  eyes  to  the  truth  can  they  deny  the  claims. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  181 

of  Colonel  Shaw2  and  his  officers  and  soldiers  without 
adding  the  savage  threats  of  the  enemy,  the  disapproba 
tion  of  friends,  the  antipathy  of  the  army,  the  sneers  of 
the  multitude  here;  without  reckoning  the  fire  in  the  rear 
as  well  as  the  fire  in  front." 

It  seems  impossible  to  refuse  to  Lincoln  what  he  thus 
claims — all  the  credit  that  is  deserved  by  any  one  for 
arming  the  slaves,  and,  as  his  own  account  shows  the 
bitter  reprobation  it  received  from  the  people  of  the  North 
and  West,  and  from  the  army,  no  one  should  be  surprised 
at  Rhodes's  report  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV., 
p.  344)  that  "The  governing  classes  in  England  could  see 
in  it" — the  Emancipation  Proclamation — "nothing  but 
an  attempt  to  excite  servile  insurrection,"  in  support  of 
which  statement  Rhodes  quotes  (p.  355)  the  following 
from  the  London  Times:  "President  Lincoln  calls  to  his 
aid  the  execrable  expedient  of  a  servile  insurrection." 
Rhodes  quotes  the  Saturday  Review,  too,  as  making  it  a 
crime,  and  further  says  that  even  friends  of  the  United 
States  in  England  sent  back  "  comments  that  were  dubious 
and  chilling,"  for  which  he  quotes  The  London  Spectator 
and  the  Duchess  of  Argyle.  The  Spectator  has  not  ceased 
to  this  day — 1903 — boasting  of  its  stead}?:  support  of  the 
North  against  the  South  in  this  contest,  and  of  having 
been  almost  alone  in  supporting  that  side.  Rhodes  further 
says  that  the  London  Times  and  the  Saturday  Review 
represented  the  highest  intelligence  of  England. 

How  Negro  Soldiers  Were  "Enlisted." 
A  romantic  picture  has  been  presented  to  the  world 
of  the  negroes  enlisting — one  hundred  and  eighty  thou- 

2Shaw  was  a  Boston  gentleman  who  accepted  the  colonelcy  of  a  regiment  of 
negroes. 


182  The  Real  Lincoln. 

sand  of  them — in  the  Union  army  to  vindicate  their  liberty. 
See  what  the  facts  were.  We  have  Gen.  W.  T.  Sherman's 
account  of  the  way  the  negro  soldiers  were  enlisted  and 
his  estimate  of  their  value  (Memoir,  Vol.  II.,  p.  249).  At 
the  end  of  his  March  to  the  Sea  he  says,  "  When  we  reached 
Savannah  we  were  beset  by  ravenous  State  Agents  from 
Hilton  Head,  South  Carolina,  who  enticed  and  carried 
away  our  servants  and  the  corps  of  pioneers3  which  we 
had  organized,  and  which  had  done  such  excellent  service. 
On  one  occasion  my  own  aide-de-camp,  Colonel  Audenreid, 
found  at  least  a  hundred  poor  negroes  shut  up  in  a  house 
and  pen,  waiting  for  the  night,  to  be  conveyed  stealthily 
to  Hilton  Head.  They  appealed  to  him  for  protection, 
alleging  that  they  had  been  told  that  they  must  be  soldiers ; 
that  'Massa  Lincoln'  wanted  them.  I  never  denied  the 
slaves  a  full  opportunity  for  enlistment,  but  I  did  prohibit 
force  to  be  used,  for  I  knew  that  the  State  Agents  were 
more  influenced  by  the  profit  they  derived  from  the  large 
bounties  than  by  any  love  of  country  or  of  the  colored 
race.  In  the  language  of  Mr.  Frazier,  the  enlistment  of 
every  black  man  'did  not  strengthen  the  army,  but  took 
away  one  white  man  from  the  ranks.'  "4 

Leland  (Lincoln,  p.  61,  et  seq.)  quotes  a  soldier  as  say 
ing,  "I  used  to  be  opposed  to  having  black  troops,  but 
when  I  saw  ten  cart-loads  of  dead  niggers  carried  off  the 
field  yesterday  I  thought  it  better  they  should  be  killed 
than  I." 


3A11  negroes ;  he  has  showed  that  he  used  the  negroes  only  as  laboring  pioneers 
and  as  servants,  not  at  all  as  soldiers. 

4Sherman's  authoritative  professional  opinion  here  antagonizes  the  often 
repeated  allegation  that  "the  colored  troops  fought  nobly."  The  fact  that  "the 
enlistment  of  every  black  man  took  a  white  man  from  the  ranks"  was  one  tempta 
tion  to  vote  for  arming  the  slave,  to  men  eager  to  escape  military  service,  as  nearly 
all  the  people  of  all  the  States  are  shown  to  have  been. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  183 

Sherman's  report  above  of  State  Agents  kidnapping 
negroes  to  be  shipped  for  enlistment  from  Hilton  Head, 
on  the  coast  of  South  Carolina,  has  light  cast  upon  it  by 
the  two  following  extracts.  The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  &c., 
Serial  125.,  p.  631,  gives  a  letter  of  the  Mayor  of  Boston, 
H.  Alexander,  Jr.,  endorsed  with  urgent  approval  by  the 
Governor,  Andrew,  August  22,  1864,  as  follows:  "From 
present  indications,  I  believe  it  will  be  impossible  for  this 
city  to  fill  its  quota  under  the  last  call  of  the  President  by 
volunteers  from  its  own  citizens."  Of  the  men  enrolled 
he  says,  "More  or  less  of  these  men  are  now  leaving  the 
city  daily  to  avoid  the  draft,  and  as  the  5th  of  September 
approaches,  the  number  leaving  will  be  largely  increased; 
.  .  .  that  more  than  500  of  the  ablest-bodied  young 
men  .  .  .  will  have  left.  .  .  .  Now,  what  we 
want,  and  what  I  hope  we  may  accomplish,  is  to  get  men 
from  abroad  to  go  as  volunteers."  In  the  next  preceding 
volume  of  the  record  last  quoted,  sufficiently  indicated  as 
Serial  Number  124,  at  p.  110,  Governor  Andrew,  of  Massa 
chusetts,  writes  Secretary  Stanton,  April  1,  1863,  .  .  . 
"If  the  United  States  is  not  prepared  to  organize  a  brigade 
in  North  Carolina,  I  would  gladly  take  those  black  men 
who  may  choose  to  come  here,  receive  our  State  bounty, 
and  be  mustered  in." 

General  Sherman  shows  above  how  some  of  the  negro 
soldiers  were  enlisted.  Here  is  light  upon  another  method. 
Lesslie  T.  Perry5  quotes  from  a  letter  of  Lincoln  to  Lieu 
tenant-Colonel  Glenn,  Henderson,  Kentucky,  of  February 
7,  1865:  "Complaint  is  made  to  me  that  you  are  forcing 
negroes  into  the  military  service,  and  even  torturing 

5Late  of  the  War  Record's  Board  of  Publication.     See  Lippincott's  Magazine 
for   February,    1902. 


184  The  Real  Lincoln. 

them,"  and  Lincoln  reproves  it,  though  not  severely,  and 
forbids  it.  An  examination  of  the  orders  of  Major-General 
David  Hunter,  commanding  the  Department  of  the  South, 
as  found  in  the  War  of  the  Rebellion,  will  account  for  all 
the  negroes  that  were  enlisted.  General  Hunter  gives 
orders  (Series  I.,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  466)  how  to  deal  with  "all 
fugitives  who  come  within  our  lines.  .  .  .  Such  as 
are  able-bodied  men  you  will  at  once  enroll  and  arm  as 
soldiers."  Again,  from  headquarters,  Department  of  the 
South,  Hilton  Head,  South  Carolina,  August  16,  1864, 
General  Hunter  issued  the  order,  "All  able-bodied  colored 
men  between  the  ages  of  eighteen  and  fifty  within  the 
military  lines  of  the  Department  of  the  South,  who  have 
had  an  opportunity  to  enlist  voluntarily  and  refused  to 
do  so,  shall  be  drafted  into  the  military  service  of  the 
United  States,  to  serve  as  non-commissioned  officers  and 
soldiers  in  the  various  regiments  and  batteries  now  being 
organized  in  the  Department."  This  order  alone  may 
account  for  the  wrhole  180,000  colored  volunteers. 


CHAPTER  XXY. 

Opposition  to  Lincoln's  Re-Election. 

THE  crowning  proof  of  the  attitude  of  a  very  large  part 
of  the  people  of  the  North  and  the  West  is  the 
platform  and  the  nominee  adopted  by  the  Democratic 
party  for  the  presidential  election  of  1864,  near  the  end 
of  the  war.  It  advocated  the  abandonment  of  the  war, 
and  the  nominee  was  McClellan,  an  avowed  opponent  of 
emancipation.  Colonel  Roosevelt,  now  President,  said 
in  a  speech  at  Grand  Rapids,  Michigan,  September  8, 
1900,  "In  1864  the  Democratic  platform  denounced  the 
further  prosecution  of  the  Civil  War."  .  .  .  The 
chairman  of  the  convention  in  1864  made  a  speech  in 
which  "  he  declared  that  every  lover  of  civil  liberty  through 
out  the  world  was  interested  in  the  success  of  the  Copper 
head  party."  Such  was  the  issue  adopted  on  which  to 
appeal  to  the  North  and  the  West,  and  the  frarners  of  it 
were  called  by  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  the  Navy1  some  of 
the  most  astute  and  experienced  statesmen  of  their  day. 
Nor  was  the  appeal  a  failure,  as  has  been  so  widely  her 
alded.  It  is  Ida  Tarbell,  Nicolay  and  Hay,  Butler,  Schouler, 
Holland,  McClure,  Lincoln  himself,  who  have  recorded  as 
follows:  That  three  months  after  his  renomination  they 
all  despaired  of  his  re-election. 

Gilmore  gives  (Personal  Recollections  of  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  p.  102)  a  long  list  of  names,  including  "  about  all  the 
most  prominent  Republican  leaders,  except  Conkling, 


'  paper,  The  Opposition  to  Lincoln  in  1864,  in  The  Atlantic  Monthly, 
Vol.  XVI.,  dated  1878. 

(185) 


186  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Sumner,  and  Wilson,"  who,  with  more  or  less  full  com 
mittal,  joined  in  a  solicitation  to  Rosecrans  to  run  against 
Lincoln.  Ida  Tarbell  concedes2  only  "  a  few  conservatives 
supported  Lincoln  in  his  desire  for  a  second  term/'  while 
"there  were  more  who  doubted  his  ability,  and  who  were 
secretly  looking  for  a  better  man.  At  the  same  time  a 
strong  and  open  opposition  to  his  re-election  had  de 
veloped." 

Nicolay  (Outbreak  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  475)  says:  "The 
evident  desire  of  the  people  for  peace  was  a  subject  of  deep 
solicitude  to  the  administration."  Morse  (Lincoln,  Vol. 
II.,  p.  274)  shows  the  general  despair  of  electing  Lincoln, 
in  a  letter  to  Lincoln  from  Raymond,  chairman  of  the 
Republican  National  Executive  Committee,  August  22, 
1864,  which  says:  "I  hear  but  one  report— the  tide  is  set 
ting  against  us,"  speaking  himself  for  New  York,  and 
quoting  Cameron  for  Pennsylvania,  Washburne  for  Illinois, 
and  Morton  for  Indiana,  "and  so  for  the  rest." 

Nicolay  and  Hay  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  249)  say 
that  .  .  .  by  August,  1864,  Weed,  Raymond,  every  one, 
including  Lincoln,  despaired  of  his  re-election.  A.  K. 
McClure  says  (Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them, 
p.  183),  "But  in  fact  three  months  after  his  renomination 
in  Baltimore  his  defeat  by  General  McClellan  was  generally 
apprehended  by  his  friends  and  frankly  conceded  by  Lin 
coln  himself."  Several  of  his  biographers  give  copies  of 
a  memorandum  sealed  up  by  Lincoln  and  committed  to 
one  of  his  Cabinet  for  safekeeping,  in  which  is  recorded 
his  conviction  that  McClellan's  election  over  him  was 
certain,  with  a  statement  of  his  purposes  how  to  act  during 
the  interval  before  McClellan  would  take  the  presidency. 

*McClure's  Magazine  for  July,   1899,  p.   268. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  187 

It  is  referred  to  by  Welles  in  his  papers  in  the  Atlantic 
Monthly  under  the  heading,  "Opposition  to  Lincoln  in 
1864,"  (pp.  266  and  366,  et  seq.,)  as  "Lincoln's  despondent 
note  of  August  23,  1864."  Rhodes,  too,  quotes  it.8 

Allen  Thorndike  Rice  quotes,4  with  his  endorsement 
of  its  truth,  W.  H.  Croffut's  account  of  Lincoln's  offering 
his  withdrawal  and  his  support  for  the  presidency  to  Hora 
tio  Seymour,  and,  when  that  failed,  his  offering  the  same 
to  General  McClellan,  because  he  despaired  of  being  him 
self  elected,  and  asked  in  return  from  each  his  support  for 
the  rest  of  his  term.  Nicolay  and  Hay,  too,  tell  (Abraham 
Lincoln,  Vol.  VII. ,  p.  12)  of  Lincoln's  offer  to  Seymour 
of  the  nomination.  The  nomination  for  Vice-President 
Lincoln  had  offered  to  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler  (Butler's  Book, 
p.  155,  et  seq.)  before  he  procured5  the  nomination  of 
Andrew  Johnson. 

Rhodes  says6  that  Thaddeus  Stevens  said  that  in  the 
winter' of  1863-' 4  there  was  but  one  single  member  of  Con 
gress  who  favored  Lincoln's  renomination,  and  Rhodes 
gives  a  long  list  of  the  names  of  leaders  that  opposed  him, 
showing  "a  formidable  discontent,"  and  he  says  further, 
"  Striking  indeed  it  is  to  one  who  immerses  himself  in  the 
writings  of  the  time  to  contrast  the  almost  universal 
applause  of  Grant  with  the  abuse  of  Lincoln  by  the  Demo 
crats,  the  caustic  criticism  of  him  by  some  of  the  Radical 
Republicans,  the  damning  of  him  with  faint  praise  by 
others  of  the  same  faction."  All  this  was  in  the  spring 
of  1864.  Again  Rhodes  says  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  518),  "Greeley 


3Vol.  IV.,  p.   522.     See  also  Roosevelt's  Cromwell,  p.  208,  where   the    note 
is  referred    to. 

^Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  Introduction,  pp.  29  to  35. 

5A.  K.  McClure's  Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them,  p.  185,  et  seq. 

^History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  437  and  p.  462. 


188  The  Real  Lincoln. 

wrote,  August  8,  1864,  'Mr.  Lincoln  is  already  beaten.'  " 
Rhodes  gives  evidence,  like  Nicolay  above,  of  the  hope 
lessness  of  success  that  prevailed  among  the  leading  Re 
publicans  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  521), 
quoting  the  words  of  the  above-mentioned  reports  from 
Thurlow  Weed,  E.  B.  Washburn,  from  Cameron  about 
Pennsylvania,  Morton  about  Indiana,  and  Henry  J.  Ray 
mond,  as  chairman  of  the  National  Executive  Committee. 
Governor  Morton  reported  that  "  Indiana  would  go  against 
us  50,000  to-morrow/'  and  the  Chairman,  "that  nothing 
but  the  most  resolute  and  decided  action  on  the  part  of 
the  Government  and  its  friends  can  save  the  country 
from  falling  into  hostile  hands."  Morse,  too  (Lincoln, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  247),  gives  Raymond's  letter  to  Lincoln  of 
August  22nd  conveying  the  above  reports. 

Rhodes  records  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  199,  et  seq.)  that  Lincoln 
himself  was  conscious  "  that  he  was  losing  his  hold  on  the 
people  of  the  North." 

What  "resolute  and  decided  action  on  the  part  of  the 
Government"  relieved  it  from  this  hopeless  condition 
will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter. 


CHAPTER  XXYI. 

How  Lincoln  Got  Himself  Re-Elected. 

IT  WAS  under  the  conditions  above  described  that  Lin 
coln's  second  election  came  on.     The  way  it  was  con 
ducted  explains  why  he  no  longer  despaired  of  success, 
and  why  he  was  successful . 

Despotic  Control  by  the  Secretaries  of  State  and  of  War. 

The  management  of  the  election  was  committed  in  large 
measure  to  Seward,  Secretary  of  State,  and  to  Stanton, 
Secretary  of  War;  the  exercise  of  despotic  power  by  both 
of  whom  has  been  described.  Even  a  canvass  for  the  presi 
dency  by  Democrats  was  difficult,  for  an  order  of  the  War 
Department  had  made  criticism  of  the  administration 
treason,  triable  by  court-martial. 

Votes  of  Soldiers  in  the  Field  and  Soldiers  Sent  Home  to 

Vote. 

A.  K.  McClure  (Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them, 
p.  195,  et  seq.)  gives  his  answer  to  a  messenger  sent  him 
"on  a  special  message  by  Lincoln"  about  two  weeks  before 
the  election,  to  learn  the  situation  in  Pennsylvania,  as  fol 
lows:  "I  had  to  tell  him  that  I  saw  little  hope  of  carrying 
the  State  on  a  home  vote.  The  army  vote  would  no  doubt 
be  largely  for  Lincoln,  and  give  him  the  State,  but  it  would 
be  declared  a  bayonet  election,  and  with  such  results  in 

(189) 


190  The  Real  Lincoln. 

Pennsylvania,  and  New  York  lost,  as  was  possible ;  .  .  . 
that  I  could  go  to  Washington  in  a  few  days,  if  it  should 
appear  necessary  to  take  extreme  measures  to  save  the 
State  on  the  home  vote.  ...  As  the  political  condi 
tions  did  not  improve,  I  telegraphed  Lincoln  that  I  would 
meet  him  .  .  .  to  discuss  the  campaign."  .  .  . 
McClure  then  tells  how  he  proposed,  and  Lincoln  agreed, 
that  five  thousand  Pennsylvania  soldiers  should  be  fur- 
loughed  by  Grant  for  twenty  days,  ...  as  that  vote 
cast  at  home  would  ensure  a  home  majority.  Lincoln 
answered  that  he  had  no  reason  to  think  that  Grant  would 
favor  his  election — thought  he  could  count  on  Meade  and 
Sheridan.  The  order  was  accordingly  sent  to  General 
Meade,  with  directions  that  the  order  be  returned,  and,  as 
soon  as  the  furloughs  were  granted,  it  was  returned,  and 
so  concealed.  In  connection  with  this  disbelief  of  Lin 
coln  in  General  Grant's  friendliness  to  his  re-election,  it 
is  interesting  to  consider  General  Wm.  T.  Sherman's  state 
ment  (Memoir,  Vol.  II.,  p.  247)  that  Lincoln  was  "tor 
tured  with  suspicions  of  my  infidelity  to  him  and  his  negro 
policy."  McClure  says,  too  (p.  162),  that  a  constitutional 
change  had  been  hurried  through  in  Pennsylvania  that 
same  summer  of  1864,  that  "was  obviously  intended  to 
give  the  minority  no  rights  at  all  in  holding  army  elections." 
He  says  the  law  was  "liable  to  grossest  abuses,  and  without 
any  means  to  restrain  election  frauds,"  and  his  descrip 
tion  shows  that  it  worked  so.  Allen  Thorndike  Rice  tells 
the  same  story  about  Grant  (Introduction  to  Reminiscences 
of  Lincoln,  p.  43). 

Chauncey  M.  Depew  describes  (Reminiscences  of  Lin 
coln,  &c.,  p.  22,  et  seq.)  the  working  of  the  new  amendment 
in  the  Pennsylvania  election;  .  .  .  how  the  soldier 


The  Real  Lincoln.  191 

vote  was  polled —  ..."  made  out  by  the  soldier  him 
self,  certified  by  the  commanding  officer  of  his  company 
or  regiment,  and  sent  to  some  friend  at  his  last  voting 
place  to  be  deposited  on  election  day."  Depew  says  that 
without  the  soldier  vote,  so  managed,  Lincoln  would  have 
failed  to  get  the  vote  of  New  York. 

Ex-President  Buchanan  wrote  Mr.  Leiper  October  26, 
1864  (Curtis'  Life  of  Buchanan,  Vol.  II.,  p.  627),  .  .  . 
"and  I  now  indulge  the  hope  that  we" — that  is,  the  Demo 
crats,  in  the  Pennsylvania  election — "  may  have  a  majority 
over  the  soldiers'  vote  and  all." 

Forcible  Control  of  Elections  by  Armed  Soldiers  and  by  Sus 
pension  of  the  Writ. 

Genreal  B.  F.  Butler  tells  more  plainly  than  Depew  above 
why  Lincoln  did  not  "fail  to  get  the  vote  of  New  York." 
He  says  (Butler's  Book,  p.  753  to  762)  that  early  in  Novem 
ber,  1864 — the  November  of  Lincoln's  second  election— 
Stanton  summoned  him,  and  sent  him  to  New  York  city 
to  prevent  an  anticipated  outbreak  in  the  city,  which  was 
to  give  the  whole  vote  of  New  York  to  McClellan  by  a  far 
more  widely  extended  and  far  better  organized  riot  than 
the  draft  riot  of  1863.  At  page  330,  et  seq.,  Butler  had 
before  described  how  he  put  down  those  draft  riots,  as 
follows:  "Ten  thousand  infantry  and  three  batteries  of 
artillery,  picked  troops,  including  regulars,  were  sent  to 
New  York  city  from  the  Army  of  the  Potomac."  By  aid 
of  these,  Butler  says,  that  "the  draft  was  resumed,  and 
proceeded  with  entire  peacefulriess."  Not  only  General 
Butler,  but  Rhodes,  too,  describes,1  with  full  particulars, 

lButler's  Book,  p.  752  to  p.  773,  and  Rhodes'  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol. 
IV.,  p.  330,  et  seq. 


192  The  Real  Lincoln. 

the  large  force  with  which  he  occupied  New  York  city, 
and  show  how  completely  he  controlled  its  vote  and  its 
opposition  to  the  war  that  had  lately  been  demonstrated 
in  its  great  anti-draft  riot.  See  how  frankly  Rhodes 
concedes  that  this  despotic  overruling  of  the  will  of  the 
people  was  Lincoln's  own  doing.  He  says  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  417),  "to  meet  the  action  of 
the  judges  who  were  releasing  his  conscripts  and  deserters, 
he  stopped  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  but  deferred  till  four 
days  after  the  election  his  call  for  three  hundred  thousand 
more  volunteers,  with  a  draft  to  fill  deficiencies."  In  con 
sidering  what  the  consequences  would  have  been  of  a 
failure  to  capture  Vicksburg,  Rhodes  says  (p.  183),  "If 
nothing  worse,  certain  it  is  that  President  Lincoln  would 
have  been  deposed,  and  a  dictator  would  have  been  placed 
in  his  stead  as  chief  executive  until  peace  could  be  assured 
to  the  nation  by  separation  or  else  wise." 

Removal  of  His  Chief  Competitor. 

In  the  chapter  headed  Estimates  of  Lincoln  it  has  been 
shown  that  he  had  from  first  to  last  the  bitter  and  con 
temptuous  hatred  of  his  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Thos. 
Chase,  whom  he  finally  made  Chief  Justice  of  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States.  A.  K.  McClure  says  (Lincoln 
and  Men  of  the  War  Times,  p.  123,  et  seq.},  "Lincoln's  de 
sire  for  re-nomination  was  the  one  thing  uppermost  in  his 
mind  during  the  third  year  of  his  administration.  He 
carefully  veiled  his  resentment  against  Chase,  and  awaited 
the  fullness  of  time  when  he  could  by  some  fortuitous  cir 
cumstance  remove  Chase  as  a  competitor" — his  most  for 
midable  and  conspicuous  competitor  for  the  presidency. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  193 

At  page  127,  et  seq.,  McClure  says,  "Chief  Justice  Taney 
died  the  12th  of  October,  1864.  Within  two  weeks  after, 
Chase  declared  himself  in  favor  of  the  election  of  Lincoln." 
Warden  says  (Life  of  Salmon  P.  Chase,  p.  630,  et  seq.)  that 
Senator  Sumner  told  him  Mr.  Lincoln  once  proposed  to 
him  to  send  for  Mr.  Chase,  and  frankly  tell  him  that  in 
his  (Lincoln's)  opinion  he  would  make  the  best  Chief  Jus 
tice  we  ever  had,  if  he  could  only  get  rid  of  his  presidential 
ambition;  .  .  .  that  Senator  Sumner  had  to  remind 
Mr.  Lincoln  that  to  do  so  would  expose  the  President  to 
imputations  as  to  his  motives,  and  would  be  offensive  to 
Mr.  Chase,  as  requiring  in  effect  a  pledge  from  the  latter 
not  to  be,  thereafter,  a  presidential  candidate.  Warden 
says2  that  Chase's  own  State — Ohio — made  the  most  bitter 
objection,  though  it  came  from  every  part  of  the  country, 
and  from  many  of  the  ablest  and  most  earnest  of  Lincoln's 
friends;  that  it  was  objected  that  Chase  was  "without 
legal  training,"  because  his  life  had  been  devoted  almost 
exclusively  to  politics,  as  a  United  States  Senator,  as  Gov 
ernor,  as  Senator  again,  in  the  Cabinet,  and  that  "for 
many  years  he  had  given  no  thought  or  efforts  to  the  law." 
McClure  says  further  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time, 
p.  130)  of  Chase,  "His  personal  affronts  to  Lincoln  had 
been  contemptuous  and  flagrant  from  the  time  he  entered 
the  Cabinet  until  he  resigned  from  it,  a  little  more  than 
three  years  after,  and  I  am  sure  that  at  no  time  during  that 
period  did  Lincoln  ever  appeal  to  Chase  for  advice  as  a 
friend;  .  .  .  "*that  Lincoln  regarded  Chase  as  his  bitter 

2Page  630.  He  says  that  it  was  told  to  him  and  to  at  least  one  other  person 
by  Sumner,  that  Chase's  well  known  daughter,  Mrs.  Kate  Chase  Sprague,  who  was 
using  all  her  powers  to  win  him  the  Presidency,  met  Sumner,  when  he  carried  to 
Chase  the  news  of  his  confirmation  as  Chief  Justice,  with  the  words,  "And  you, 
too,  Mr.  Sumner,  in  this  business  of  shelving  papa!"  .  .  . 

13 


194  The  Real  Lincoln. 

and  malignant  enemy  during  all  that  period  cannot  be 
doubted;  .  .  .  that  it  was  not  pretended  (p.  130)  that 
Chase  had  any  claim  to  the  Chief  Justiceship  on  the  grounds 
of  eminent  legal  attainments  or  of  political  fidelity." 

Use  of  Fictitious  States. 

Explanation  of  Lincoln's  re-election  would  be  incom 
plete  without  details  of  his  use  of  fictitious  States,  and  the 
details  must  be  considered  at  some  length. 

The  New  York  Times  of  January  11,  1902,  quotes  Ben 
Wade  as  denouncing  President  Lincoln's  "promise  that 
whenever  the  tenth  part  of  the  people  of  a  State  came  back 
he  would  recognize  them  as  a  State."  And  the  Times  goes 
on,  meaning  commendation,  not  censure,  of  Lincoln,  "It 
was  under  this  plan  .  .  .  that  Union  governments 
were  inaugurated  in  Tennessee,  Louisiana  and  Arkansas, 
the  first  two  of  which  participated  in  the  presidential  elec 
tion  of  1864,  and  all  before  the  close  of  the  war  elected  mem 
bers  to  Congress."  This  plan  was  denounced  by  the  Hon. 
H.  Winter  Davis,  staun chest  of  Republicans,  and  Aboli 
tionist,  as  follows,  in  the  House : 

"It  is  not  surprising,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  the  President, 
having  failed  to  sign  the  bill  passed  by  the  whole  body  of 
his  supporters  by  both  Houses,  at  the  last  session  of  Con 
gress,  and  having  assigned,  under  pressure  of  events,  but 
without  authority  of  law,  reasons,  good  or  bad,  first  for 
refusing  to  allow  the  bill  to  become  a  law,  and  therefore 
usurping  power  to  execute  parts  of  it  as  law,  while  he  dis 
carded  dther  parts  which  interfered  with  possible  electoral 
votes,  those  arguments  should  be  found  satisfactory  to 
some  minds  prone  to  act  upon  the  winking  of  authority." 
Then  Winter  Davis  goes  on,  about  Louisiana's  then  rep- 


The  Real  Lincoln.  195 

resentatives,  "Whose  representatives  are  they?  .  .  . 
In  Louisiana  they  are  the  representatives  of  the  bayonets 
of  General  Banks  and  the  will  of  the  President,  as  expressed 
in  his  secret  letter  to  General  Banks."  Then  Winter 
Davis  denounces  with  scorn  the  body  sitting  in  Alexandria, 
pretending  to  be  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Virginia. 
He  calls  the  pretended  State  "  a  fringe  along  the  Potomac 
and  the  sea,"  which,  he  says,  "has  just  sent  two  Senators 
to  the  other  House,  and  has  ratified  the  amendment  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  abolishing  slavery  in 
all  the  rest  of  Virginia,  where  not  one  of  them  dares  put 
his  pretty  person."  And  Davis  goes  on,  "And  so  Congress 
has  dwindled  down  to  a  commission  to  audit  accounts  and 
to  appropriate  moneys  to  enable  the  executive  to  execute 
his  will,  and  not  ours." 

Usher  shows  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  92  to  94) 
that  when  Montgomery  Blair  and  Seward  objected  to  omit 
ting  from  the  Emancipation  Proclamation  the  thirteen  par 
ishes  and  the  city  of  New  Orleans  in  Louisiana,  and  the  coun 
ties  in  Virginia  near  Norfolk,  .  .  which  they  said  were 
the  very  heart  and  backbone  of  slavery,  Lincoln  explained 
that  it  was  already  arranged  that  Congressmen  were  to 
come  to  Washington  from  these  regions,  and  that  some 
of  the  Congressmen  were  elected.  Mr.  Chase  then  said, 
"Very  true;  they  have  elected  Hahn  and  Flanders,  but 
they  have  not  got  their  seats,  and  it  is  not  certain  they 
will;"  that  Mr.  Lincoln  rose  from  his  seat,  apparently 
irritated,  and  walked  rapidly  back  and  forth  across  the 
room.  Looking  over  his  shoulder  at  Mr.  Chase,  he  said, 
"There  it  is,  sir.  I  am  to  be  bullied  by  Congress,  am  I? 
If  I  do,  I'll  be  durned."  Nothing  more  was  said.  Usher 
says,  too,  that  a  month  or  more  thereafter  Hahn  and  Flan- 


196  The  Real  Lincoln. 

ders  were  admitted  to  their  seats.  Page  95  of  the  same 
book  shows  that  a  man  named  Hahn  was  the  first  Free- 
State  Governor  of  Louisiana.  Rhodes  quotes  (Vol.  IV. ; 
p.  4S4)  a  letter  from  Lincoln  to  Michael  Hahn,  the  new 
Governor  of  Louisiana,  elected  under  Lincoln's  "plan" 
above  described.  It  reads  as  follows :  "  Now  you  are  about 
to  have  a  convention,  which,  among  other  things,  will 
probably  define  the  elective  franchise.  I  barely  suggest 
for  your  private  consideration  whether  some  of  the  col 
ored  people  may  not  be  let  in." 

Nicolay  and  Hay  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  436, 
vt  seq.)  describe  the  process  of  making  a  loyal  State  out 
of  Virginia — not  West  Virginia — as  follows:  "The  diffi 
culty  of  effecting  reconstruction  strictly  in  conformity 
with  any  assumed  legal  or  constitutional  theories  appears 
clearly  enough  in  the  case  of  Virginia,  .  .  .  when  the 
spontaneously  chosen  Wheeling  Convention  of  August, 
1861,  repudiated  the  secession  ordinance  of  the  Richmond 
Convention,  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  recognized  the 
restored  State  government  of  Virginia,  having  Governor 
Pierpoint  as  its  executive  head,  by  admitting  to  seats  the 
Senators  sent  to  Washington  by  the  reconstructed  Legis 
lature,  and  the  representatives  elected  by  popular  vote. 
Full  reconstruction  being  thus  recognized  by  both  exe 
cutive  and  legislative  departments  of  the  National  Govern 
ment,  .  .  .  West  Virginia  was  organized  and  admitted 
to  the  Union  as  a  separate  State.  .  .  .  Governor  Pier- 
point,  with  the  archives  and  personnel  of  the  reconstructed 
State  government,  removed  from  Wheeling  to  Alexandria. 
.  .  .  But  while  the  constitutional  theory  was  thus  ful 
filled  and  perfect,  the  practical  view  of  the  matter  cer 
tainly  presented  occasion  for  serious  criticism.  The  State 


The  Real  Lincoln.  197 

government  which  Governor  Pierpoint  brought  from 
Wheeling  to  Alexandria  could  make  no  very  imposing 
show  of  personal  influence,  official  emblems  or  practical 
authority.  The  territorial  limits  in  which  it  could  pretend 
to  exercise  its  functions  were  only  such  as  lay  within  the 
Union  military  lines;  a  few  counties  contiguous  to  Wash 
ington,  two  counties  on  the  eastern  shore,  the  vicinage  of 
Fort  Monroe  and  the  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth." 
Nicolay  and  Hay  go  on  (Abraham  Lincoln,  Vol.  IX., 
p.  438,  et  seq.)  to  show  how  Pierpoint  "ventured  upon  the 
expedient  of  authorizing  the  election  of  a  State  Conven 
tion,"  and  of  gathering  a  little  Legislature  about  him  at 
Alexandria;  that  this  convention  adopted  and  amended  a 
constitution  for  Virginia  which,  among  other  things,  abol 
ished  slavery.  They  tell  how  Winter  Davis  sneered  at 
it,  calling  it  "the  common  council  of  Alexandria."  They 
quote,  without  dissent  or  comment,  a  "pamphlet,"  which 
deals  as  follows  with  the  ratification  by  this  convention  of 
the  13th  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States:  "And  while  this  ratification  may  be  said  to  have 
been,  like  Mercutio's  wound,  'not  so  deep  as  a  well,  nor 
so  wide  as  a  church  door/  it  effectually  served  to  make  up 
the  necessary  number  of  twenty-seven  States  whose  action 
made  the  amendment  a  vital  part  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States."3  "Under  this  ordinance  and 


3Nicolay  and  Hay  can  write  as  plain,  good  English  as  any  one.  The  reader's 
attention  is  invited  to  the  strait  in  which  they  find  themselves  to  describe  without 
censure  this  manufacture  of  Fictitious  States.  The  cities — Norfolk  and  Ports 
mouth — were  as  staunchly  faithful  to  the  Southern  cause  as  Richmond  or  Charles 
ton,  and  were  kept  under  by  such  methods  as  setting  a  "disloyal"  clergyman  to 
work  on  the  streets,  wearing  the  ball  and  chain  of  a  convict.  It  was  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Wingfield,  afterwards  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  California.  The  use  of  these  Fic 
titious  States  that  might  have  been  made  in  Lincoln's  second  election,  if  they  had 
been  needed,  and  the  use  that  was  made  of  one  of  them,  is  shown  by  Morse's  ac 
count  given  later. 


198  The  Real  Lincoln. 

amended  constitution  Governor  Pierpoint  carried  on  his 
administration,  clearly  not  with  the  normal  health  and 
vigor  of  an  average  State  government,  and  yet,  .  .  . 
that  justified  its  continued  recognition  under  the  consti 
tutional  theory  under  which  the  President  and  Congress 
had  recognized  it  before  the  division  of  the  State." 

Nicolay  and  Hay  commend  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler's  conduct 
in  the  matters  for  which  he  has  been  most  denounced — 
his  conduct  in  New  Orleans — and  they  here  quote  (Abra 
ham  Lincoln,  Vol.  IX.,  p.  440)  his  characterization  of  Pier- 
point  as  follows:  .  .  .  "a  person  who  calls  himself 
Governor,  .  .  .  pretending  to  be  head  of  the  re 
stored  government  of  Virginia."  General  Butler  describes, 
himself  (Butler's  Book,  p.  618),  what  a  farce  this  fictitious 
state  was.  About  the  end  of  1863,  he  says,  "The  army 
being  much  in  need  of  recruits,  and  Eastern  Virginia  claim 
ing  to  be  a  fully  organized  loyal  State,  by  permission  of 
the  President,  an  enrollment  of  all  the  able-bodied  loyal 
citizens  of  Virginia  within  my  command,  was  ordered  for 
the  purposes  of  a  draft  when  one  should  be  called  for  in 
the  other  loyal  States.  This  order  was  vigorously  protested 
against  by  Governor  Pierpoint,  and  this  was  all  the  assist 
ance  the  United  States  ever  received  from  the  loyal  gov 
ernment  of  Virginia  in  defending  the  State.  My  prede 
cessors  in  command  of  the  Department  of  Virginia  and 
North  Carolina,  with  headquarters  at  Fortress  Monroe,  had 
endeavored  to  recruit  a  regiment  of  loyal  Virginians,  but 
after  many  months  of  energetic  trial,  both  by  them  and 
by  myself,  the  attempt  was  abandoned.  A  company  and 
a  half  was  all  that  State  would  furnish  to  the  Union,  and 
these  were  employed  in  defending  the  lighthouses  and  pro- 


The  Real  Lincoln.  199 

tecting  the  loyal  inhabitants  from  the  outrages  of  their 
immediate  neighbors." 

Morse  shows  (Lincoln,  Vol.  II.,  p.  297)  that  Lincoln 
withheld  until  February  8th  his  approval  of  a  bill  passed 
by  Congress  in  January,  that  forbade  the  votes  of  any  of 
the  eleven  seceded  States  from  being  counted  in  the  elec 
tion.  He  says  the  8th  of  February  was  the  very  day  of 
the  count,  and  the  votes  of  Arkansas  and  Tennessee, 
though  offered,  were  not  counted.4 

Lincoln's  veto,  or  his  non-action,  would  have  enabled 
him  to  use  their  votes,  but  the  other  methods  described 
in  this  chapter  had  accomplished  the  purpose,  and  news 
of  the  success  had  reached  him,  so  that  there  was  no  need 
for  more  votes.  Morse,  however,  adds  (Vol.  II.,  p.  298), 
"Yet  the  vote  of  West  Virginia  was  counted,  and  it  was 
not  easy  to  show  that  her  title  was  not  under  a  legal  cloud 
fully  as  dark  as  that  of  Arkansas  and  Tennessee."  Dr. 
E.  Benjamin  Andrews  says  (History  of  the  United  States, 
Vol.  II.,  p.  196,  et  seq.),  "When  a  handful  of  Virginia  loy 
alists,  in  the  summer  of  1861,  formed  a  State  government 
and  elected  national  Senators  and  Representatives,  Presi 
dent  and  Congress  recognized  them  as  the  true  State  of 
Virginia."  Dr.  Andrews  says,  further  (Vol.  II.,  p.  200), 
"  Every  secession  State  but  Tennessee  rejected  the  amend 
ment" — the  fourteenth — of  the  Constitution.  And  here 
he  gives,  in  a  note,  the  number  of  States  that  voted  for 
the  three  different  amendments,  and  adds  the  following 
very  significant  comment:  "The  States  rejecting  amend- 


4In  answer  to  a  question  of  the  author,  the  Librarian  of  Congress  says,  in  a 
letter  of  May  6th,  1903,  as  follows:  "On  the  8th  of  February,  1865,  the  votes  were 
opened  by  the  Vice-President,  Mr.  Hamlin,  and  read  by  the  tellers.  The  Vice- 
President  had  in  his  possession  returns  from  the  States  of  Louisiana  and  Tennes 
see,  but  did  not  present  the  doubtful  votes." 


200  The  Real  Lincoln. 

ments,  in  every  such  instance,  were  either  border  slave 
States,  not  under  military  control,  or  those  of  the  free 
North  where  public  sentiment  opposed  the  reconstruction 
policy  of  Congress." 

Andrew  Johnson,  Military  Governor  of  Tennessee,  wrote, 
January  14,  1864,  to  Horace  Maynard5  about  the  organiza 
tion  of  a  loyal  State  of  Tennessee  as  follows:  (He  owed 
Lincoln  already  his  governorship,  and  soon  after  the  Vice- 
Presidency.)  "The  voters  in  March  should  be  put  to  the 
severest  test.  .  .  .  If  it  should  be  thought  advisable, 
two  Senators  could  be  appointed  now  who  are  sound  as 
regards  the  slavery  question  and  the  Union.  Will  the 
Senate  admit  them?  ...  I  would  give  some  of  the 
fault-finders  to  understand  that  the  real  Union  men  will 
be  for  Lincoln  for  President.  The  war  must  be  closed 
under  his  administration.  ...  I  desire  you  to  see  the 
President  in  person  and  talk  with  him  in  regard  to  these 
matters." 

See  in  the  volume  last  referred  to,  at  page  194,  a  very 
similar  letter  addressed  to  Lincoln,  showing  how  a  "loyal 
State"  was  set  up  in  Arkansas.  Lincoln's  "plan"  did  not 
meet  General  Grant's  approval,  for  we  have  in  the  same 
volume  above  referred  to,  at  page  734,  his  letter  to  the 
Secretary,  Stanton,  September  20,  1864,  from  City  Point, 
Va.,  "Please  advise  the  President  not  to  attempt  to  doctor 
up  a  State  government  for  Georgia  by  the  appointment  of 
citizens  in  any  capacity  whatever." 

This  creation  and  use  of  fictitious  States  is  plainly  dealt 
with  further  by  Morse  also  (Lincoln,  Vol.  II.,  p.  295  to 
p.  298),  Lincoln's  re-election  by  an  exceedingly  large 

5War  of  the  Rebellion;  Official  Records  of  the   Union  and  Confederate  Armies, 
Serial  No.  125,  p.  31. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  201 

majority  has  been  triumphantly  alleged  and  is  adduced  as 
proof  that  what  he  had  done  and  was  doing  had  the  ap 
proval  of  the  North  and  the  West.  That  the  vote  of  the 
electoral  college  should  be  recorded  for  Lincoln  was  quite 
inevitable  in  view  of  what  the  witnesses  quoted  in  this 
sketch  have  recorded  of  the  political  and  military  manage 
ment  of  affairs,  at  election-time  and  long  before,  in  the 
Border  States,  in  Indiana,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  New  York; 
in  great  cities  like  Chicago,  New  York  and  Boston,  and  in 
the  country  at  large,  as  far  as  Seward's  "little  bell"  could 
reach.  But  with  all  the  odds  against  McClellan  that  have 
been  shown,  the  actual  number  of  votes  gotten  by  McClellan 
was  more  than  eighty-one  per  cent,  of  the  actual  number 
of  votes  gotten  by  Lincoln,6  although  McClellan  was  fully 
committed  against  emancipation,  and  the  Democratic 
platform  said  the  war  must  cease. 

6The  figures  by  which  this  percentage  is  ascertained  are   furnished  by  the 
Peabody  Library  in  Baltimore. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 
Apotheosis  of  Lincoln. 

FEW  WHO  read  this  book  thus  far  will  escape  the  con 
clusion  that  The  Real  Lincoln  was  a  very  different 
man,  in  his  private  and  in  his  public  life,  from  what 
the  world's  verdict  has  pronounced  him  to  be.  The  ques 
tion  then  must  arise  in  the  mind  of  every  one  interested  in 
his  history,  how  so  false  an  estimate  of  him  was  impressed 
on  men 's  minds.  The  way  it  was  done  has  been  described 
more  or  less  fully  by  several  of  his  eulogists,  as  is  now  about 
to  be  shown;  and  a  name,  Apotheosis,  has  been  given  to 
the  process  of  deification  by  four  of  his  ardent  eulogists.1 
The  Century  Dictionary  defines  the  word  apotheosis  as 
"deification;  excessive  honor  paid  to  any  great  or  dis 
tinguished  person;  the  ascription  of  extraordinary  virtues 
or  superhuman  qualities  to  a  human  being." 

Allen  Thorndike  Rice  describes2  the  process  as  follows: 
"  Story  after  story,  and  trait  after  trait,  as  varying  in  value 
as  in  authenticity,  have  been  added  to  the  Lincolniana 
until  at  last  the  name  of  the  great  War  President  has  come 
to  be  a  biographical  lodestone,  attracting  without  .  .  . 
discrimination  both  the  true  and  the  false."  Horace 
White  says,3  "  The  popular  judgment  of  him  is  in  the  main 
correct  and  unshakable.  I  say  in  the  main,  because  in 


JHorace  White,  John   Russell  Young,  Ward   H.   Lamon   and  Vice-President 
Hamlin. 

introduction  to  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.   18. 

introduction  to  a  later  book  claiming  to  be  Herndon's  Abraham  Lincoln. 
See  the  Appendix  at  the  name  of  Herndon. 

(  202) 


The  Real  Lincoln.  203 

this  judgment  there  is  a  tendency  to  apotheosis  which, 
while  pardonable,  is  not  historical,  and  will  not  last." 
And  he  goes  on  (p.  21),  "The  popular  conception  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  as  one  not  seeking  public  honors  ...  is  a 
post  bellum  growth;  ...  he  was  (p.  22)  in  hot,  inces 
sant  competition  with  his  fellows  for  earthly  honors." 

Horace  White  goes  on  (p.  26),  "What  Mr.  Lincoln  was 
after  he  became  President  can  best  be  understood  by 
knowing  what  he  was  before.  The  world  owes  more  to 
Mr.  William  H.  Herndon  for  this  particular  knowledge 
than  to  all  other  persons  taken  together." 

As  late  as  September  14,  1901,  the  Church  Standard,  of 
Philadelphia,  said  of  McKinley  that  "like  Abraham  Lin 
coln  five  and  thirty  years  ago,  he  was  hardly  known  for 
what  he  was  until  he  died."  General  Keifer  said  (Slavery 
and  Four  Years  of  War,  p.  178),  "But  President  Lincoln 
was  not  understood  in  1861,  nor  even  later  during  the  war, 
and  not  fully  during  life,  by  either  his  enemies  or  his  per 
sonal  or  party  friends."  Schouler  says  of  General  William 
T.  Sherman's  first  interview  with  Lincoln  (History  of  the 
United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  23)  that  he  "left  the  mansion 
.  .  .  silenced  and  mortified,"  and  General  Sherman 
himself  says  of  the  interview  (Memoir,  Vol.  I.,  p.  168), 
"I  was  sadly  disappointed,  and  remember  that  I  broke 

out  on  John,4  d ning  the  politicians  generally,  saying 

'  you  have  got  things  in  a  hell  of  a  fix.'  "  Rhodes  says  (His 
tory  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  211),  "The  hand  that 
draws  the  grotesque  trait  of  Lincoln  may  disappoint  the 
hero-worshipper,  but  the  truth  of  the  story  requires  this 
touch  which  .  .  .  and  .  .  .  serves  as  a  justifica- 

4His  brother,  Senator  John  Sherman,  had  introduced  him  to  the  President. 


204  The  Real  Lincoln. 

tion  for  these  who  could  not  in  the  winter  of  1862-'3  see 
with  the  eyes  of  to-day."  .  .  . 

The  biographer  of  Ex-Vice-President  Hamlin  says,5  "  In 
deed  Mr.  Hamlin  was  of  the  opinion  that  no  man  ever  grew 
in  the  executive  chair  in  his  lifetime  as  Lincoln  did.  .  .  . 
Lincoln's  growth  has  long  been  a  favorite  theme  with 
writers  and  speakers;  .  .  .  his  extreme  eulogists  made 
the  mistake  of  constructing  a  Lincoln  who  was  as  great 
the  day  he  left  Springfield  as  when  he  made  his  earthly 
exit  four  years  later.  Lincoln's  astonishing  development 
was  thus  ignored,  and  .  .  .  There  is  no  intention  of 
reviving  an  issue  that  once  caused  wide  discussion.  .  .  . 
Mr.  Hamlin  came  to  the  ultimate  opinion  that  Lincoln 
was  the  greatest  figure  of  the  age.  .  .  .  But  he  saw 
two  Lincolns."  .  .  . 

In  these  last  extracts  the  biographer  makes  us  aware  of 
two  things — that  Lincoln's  Vice-President  was  long  in 
discovering  his  greatness  and  that  efforts  were  made  to 
check  the  apotheosis  when  it  began.  No  one  who  knows 
the  history  of  the  time,  as  told  by  the  most  ardent  Northern 
historians,  such  as  Rhodes,  or  Ropes,  or  Schouler,  will 
wonder  that  the  contest  ceased  on  the  "issue  that  once 
caused  wide  discussion."  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia  quotes  the 
official  records  to  show  that  thirty-eight  thousand  men  and 
women  had  been  dealt  with  by  courts-martial.  Many 
incurred  imprisonment,  often  long  and  torturing,  and  not 
a  few  the  death  sentence  and  execution.6  No  doubt  some 
who  had  disapproved  the  conquest  and  the  emancipation 
were  tempted  to  join  in  the  io  triumphe,  and  to  share  the 
monstrous  spoils.  The  vast  number  who  had  opposed 


5Life  and  Times  of  Hanibal  Hamlin,  by  C.  E.  Hamlin,  p.  393. 
"See  page  138  of  this  book. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  205 

the  whole  war  could  hardly  do  else  than  despair  and  ac 
quiesce.  Fresh  from  a  system  that  placed  provost  mar 
shals  wherever  needed,  and  furnished  veteran  soldiers  to 
repress  resistance,  only  very  bold  men  would  venture  to 
provoke  the  dominant  powers  by  criticising  him  who  had 
won  the  victory  and  the  title  of  martyr.  No  protest  could 
get  a  hearing  over  the  din  of  triumph.  From  the  South 
protest  was  hopeless.  It  was  the  Reconstruction  Period, 
a  time  now  regarded  with  complacency  by  none  or  very  few. 

Hamlin's  biographer,  his  son,  further  goes  on  to  say 
(p.  489),  "The  truth  should  be  emphasized  that  it  is  a 
great  mistake  to  judge  public  men  of  this  time  by  their 
attitude  toward  Lincoln,"  and  he  names  among  those  who 
opposed  and  bitterly  censured  Lincoln  (p.  50,  p.  51  and 
p.  449),  Chandler,  Wade,  Sumner,  Collamer,  Trumbull, 
Hale,  Wilson,  Stevens,  H.  Winter  Davis  (p.  454),  Grimes, 
Julian,  Governor  Andrew,  of  Massachusetts,  David  Dud 
ley  Field,  John  Jay,  Wendell  Phillips,  Horace  Greeley,  Wm. 
Cullen  Bryant,  and  Secretary  Chase.  Schouler  says 
(History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  21),  "Yet  Lincoln 
was  long  believed  by  contemporaries  secondary  in  point 
of  statesmanship.  .  .  .  Lincoln,  as  one  of  fame's  im 
mortals,  does  not  appear  in  the  Lincoln  of  1861,  whom  men 
outside  of  the  administration7  likened  in  ridicule  to  the 
original  gorilla." 

Morse  says  (Lincoln,  Vol.  I.,  p.  75)  of  Lincoln's  "elab 
orate  speech"  in  Congress  on  his  resolutions  nicknamed 
"the  Spot  Resolutions,"  which  Congress  did  not  notice 
by  any  action :  "  It  may  be  not  a  very  great  or  remarkable 
speech,  but  it  was  a  good  one,"  .  .  .  and  says  the 

7His  Chief  Cabinet  Ministers,  Stanton  and  Chase,  were  not  outside  of  the 
administration.     See  what  they  called  him,  page  39  of  this  book. 


206  The  Real  Lincoln. 

resolutions  "were  sufficiently  noteworthy  to  save  Lincoln 
from  being  left  among  the  nobodies  of  the  House."  This 
is  faint  praise  for  Lincoln's  career  in  Congress. 

John  Russell  Young  is  quoted8  as  follows :  "  I  have  never 
read  a  description  of  him  that  recalls  him  as  I  knew  him. 
Something  always  beyond  and  beyond.  Nor  has  fame 
been  kind  to  him  in  the  sense  that  fame  is  never  kind  un 
less  it  is  just.  There  is  little  justice  in  much  that  is  written 
of  Lincoln.  Then  comes  the  dismal  fear  that  he  is  to  live 
in  an  apotheosis.  His  sad  fate  may  invite  this;  assassi 
nation  is  ever  a  consecration,  for  thus  do  the  gods  appoint 
their  compensations.  .  .  .  The  figure  vanishes  into 
mists;  incense  vapors  a  vision,  not  a  man.  For  of  such  is 
human  sympathy  and  human  love." 

And  the  reviewer  goes  on,  "  If  Lincoln  could  have  chosen, 
Mr.  Young  thinks,  and  justly,  that  he  would  have  desired 
to  be  remembered  as  he  was,  and  not  looked  at  through 
any  distorting  medium  like  the  aureole  and  crowning  flame 
of  martyrdom.  .  .  .  Mr.  Lincoln  did  not  impress  the 
capital  as  a  welcome  personal  force.  Living  in  an  element 
of  detraction,  he  was  not  a  popular  man.  It  would  be  hard 
to  recall  his  friends." 

No  longer  ago  than  February,  1902,  a  journal  as  strongly 
Republican  as  Leslie's  Weekly  published  a  paper  called 
Mr.  Lincoln's  Habits  and  Tendencies,  which  contained  the 
following:  "Mr.  Lincoln's  neighbors  in  Springfield  cannot 
yet  realize  that  he  was  a  marvelously  great  man.  .  .  . 
They  think  there  has  been  a  mistake  made,  somehow;  as 
he  presented  himself  to  them,  he  was  decidedly  of  the  earth, 
earthy." 


^Review  in  N.   Y.   Times  for  January  18,  1902,  p.  34. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  207 

In  order  to  express  his  regret  for  the  fact  that9  "  the  men 
whose  acquaintance  with  Lincoln  was  intimate  enough  to 
form  any  just  estimate  of  his  character,  .  .  .  did  not 
more  fully  appreciate  his  statesmanship  and  other  great 
qualities;  .  .  .  that  they  did  not  recognize  him  as  the 
greatest  patriot,  statesman  and  writer  of  his  time/'  Rhodes 
makes  the  important  concession  (History  of  the  United 
States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  211,  et  seq.),  "We  cannot  wonder  that 
his  contemporaries  failed  to  perceive  his  greatness." 

How  very  far  this  "failure  to  appreciate  his  greatness" 
prevailed  among  the  many  eminent  literary  men  of  the  North 
is  noteworthy,  for  the  world  has  been  much  misled  about  it. 
Horace  Scudder,  long  editor  of  the  Atlantic  Monthly,  says 
of  the  sixth  stanza  of  the  famous  Commemoration  Ode  (Bio 
graphy  of  Lowell,  Vol.  XI.,  p.  70),  "Into  these  three  score 
lines  Lowell  has  poured  a  conception  of  Lincoln  which  may 
justly  be  said  to  be  to-day  the  accepted  idea  which  Ameri 
cans  hold  of  their  great  President.  It  was  the  final  ex 
pression  of  the  judgment  which  had  been  slowly  forming 
in  Lowell's  own  mind,  and  when  he  summed  him  up  in  his 
last  line,  'New  birth  of  our  new  soul,  the  first  American,' 
he  was  honestly  throwing  away  all  the  doubts  which  had 
from  time  to  time  beset  him." 

The  words  "  the  judgment  which  had  been  slowly  form 
ing,"  and  "doubts  which  had  from  time  to  time  beset  him, 
can  be  understood  from  the  following  extracts,  and  others 
that  might  be  made  from  the  Biography.  Vol.  XL,  p.  29, 
records  that  Lowell  wrote  a  friend  in  December,  1861, 


9Rhodes,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  III.,  p.  368,  note,  records 
that  R.  Fuller,  a  prominent  Baptist  preacher,  wrote  Chase:  "I  marked  the  Presi 
dent  closely.  .  .  .  He  is  wholly  inaccessible  to  Christian  appeals,  and  his 
egotism  will  ever  prevent  his  comprehending  what  patriotism  means." 


208  The  Real  Lincoln. 

11 1  confess  that  my  opinion  of  the  government  does  not 
improve.  ...  I  guess  an  ounce  of  Fremont  is  worth 
a  pound  of  Long  Abraham."  Three  years  later  he 
wrote  Mr.  Norton  (Vol.  XI.,  p.  55),  "I  hear  bad  things 
about  Mr.  Lincoln,  and  try  not  to  believe  them."  How 
very  late  Lowell  did  throw  away  the  doubts  about  Lincoln 
\vhich  had  beset  him  is  curiously  shown  by  Scudder's  re 
luctant  concession  of  the  fact  (Vol.  XL,  p.  70)  that  Lin 
coln  was  not  referred  to  at  all  in  the  ode  as  delivered  (July 
21,  1865)  by  Lowell  on  Commemoration  Day  at  Harvard, 
but  was  subsequently  introduced  into  it.  Scudder  says 
(Vol.  XL,  p.  70),  "The  sixth  stanza  was  not  recited,  but 
was  written  immediately  afterward."  Laboring  to  ex 
plain  this,  he  is  obliged  to  call  it  "an  after- thought,"  and 
to  say,  "one  likes  to  fancy  the  whole  force  of  the  ode  be 
hind  it,"  though  he  has  shown  that  any  such  fancy  would 
be  entertained  in  defiance  of  the  facts  he  records.  If  this 
" after- thought "  did  occur  to  Lowell  "immediately"  after, 
it  did  not  occur  to  him,  according  to  Scudder's  own  dates, 
sooner  than  ninety  days  after  Lincoln's  assassination;  and 
it  is  a  curious  additional  example  of  his  apotheosis,  that  this 
"conception  of  Lincoln"  should  have  become,  as  Scudder 
says,  "the  accepted  idea  which  Americans  hold  of  their 
great  President."  The  New  York  Nation,  November  28, 
1901,  says,  reviewing  Scudder's  Life  of  Lowell,  "Lowell's 
growing  appreciation  of  Lincoln  is  an  important  trait.  A 
good  many  will  be  grieved  to  learn  that  the  great  Lincoln 
passage  in  the  Commemoration  Ode  was  not  a  part  of  it 
when  it  was  first  read  by  its  author,  but  was  written  sub 
sequently."  The  same  Nation  reveals  that  but  for  Lowell's 
wife,  he  would  have  gone  "hopelessly  wrong  on  the  main 
question  of  his^time." 


The  Real  Lincoln.  209 

However  late  Lowell's  favorable  judgment  of  Lincoln 
was  formed,  Scudder  quotes  (Vol.  XL,  p.  71)  from  a  paper 
in  the  Century  Magazine  for  April,  1887,  headed  Lincoln 
and  Lowell,  as  follows :  "  Lowell  was  the  first  of  the  leading 
American  writers  to  see  clearly  and  fully  and  enthusiasti 
cally  the  greatness  of  Abraham  Lincoln." 

All  of  this  testimony  to  the  fact  that  people  found  in 
Lincoln  before  his  death  nothing  remarkably  good  or  great, 
but  on  the  contrary  found  in  him  the  reverse  of  goodness 
or  greatness,  comes  from  witnesses  the  most  trustworthy 
possible,  they  being  what  lawyers  call  unwilling  witnesses. 
So  far,  however,  as  they  testify,  either  directly  or  by  sug 
gestion,  that  a  marvelous  change,  intellectual,  moral  and 
spiritual  came  over  Lincoln  after  his  entrance  on  the  duties 
of  President,  their  evidence  has  no  such  weight  as  that 
recorded  by  them  against  him,  and  has  a  strong  presump 
tion  against  its  truth. 

General  Bonn  Piatt  presents  very  effectively  his  view 
of  how  the  change  of  the  American  world's  feeling  toward 
Lincoln,  and  of  its  estimate  of  him,  came  about.  In  Remin 
iscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  21)  he  says:  "Lincoln  was  believed 
by  contemporaries  secondary  in  point  of  talent"  and  "Lin 
coln  as  one  of  Fame's  immortals  does  not  appear  in  the 
Lincoln  of  1861,  whom  men  .  .  .  likened  to  'the 
original  gorilla.'  "10  "Fictitious  heroes  have  been  em 
balmed  in  lies,  and  monuments  are  being  reared  to  the 
memories  of  men  whose  real  histories,  when  they  come  to 
be  known,  will  make  this  bronze  and  marble  the  monuments 
of  our  ignorance  and  folly."  And  again  he  says  (Remin 
iscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  477):  "With  us,  when  a  leader 

10Schouler,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI.,  p.  21,  uses  without 
quotation  marks  the  exact  words  of  Piatt  above  quoted. 

14 


210  The  Real  Lincoln. 

dies,  all  good  men  go  to  lying  about  him,  and,  from  the 
monument  that  covers  his  remains  to  the  last  echo  of  the 
rural  press,  in  speeches,  sermons,  eulogies  and  reminiscen 
ces,  we  have  naught  but  pious  lies."  .  .  .  "Poor  Gar- 
field  .  .  .  was  almost  driven  to  suicide  by  abuse  while 
he  lived.  He  fell  by  the  hand  of  an  assassin,  and  passed 
in  an  moment  to  the  role  of  popular  saints.  .  .  .  Popu 
lar  beliefs,  in  time,  come  to  be  superstitions  and  create 
gods  and  devils.  Thus  Washington  is  deified  into  an  im 
possible  man  and  Aaron  Burr  has  passed  into  a  like  impos 
sible  monster.  Through  this  same  process,  Abraham  Lin 
coln,  one  of  our  truly  great,  has  almost  gone  from  human 
knowledge  (the  Reminiscences  are  dated  1886).  I  hear  of 
him  and  read  of  him  in  eulogies  and  biographies,  and  fail 
to  recognize  the  man  I  encountered  for  the  first  time  in 
the  canvass  that  called  him  from  private  life  to  be  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States."  Piatt  then  goes  on  to  de 
scribe11  a  conference  that  he  and  General  Schenck  had  with 
Lincoln  in  his  home  in  Springfield.  "I  soon  discovered 
that  this  strange  and  strangely-gifted  man,  while  not  at 
all  cynical,  was  a  sceptic;  his  view  of  human  nature  was 
low;  ...  he  unconsciously  accepted  for  himself  and 
his  party  the  same  low  line  that  he  awarded  the  South. 
Expressing  no  sympathy  for  the  slave,  he  laughed  at  the 
Abolitionists12  as  a  disturbing  element  easily  controlled, 

nReminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  480:  "Lincoln  had  just  been  nominated  for 
the  first  time." 

l2Mrs.  Lincoln  was  present,  and  General  Piatt  adds,  "One  of  Mrs.  Lincoln's 
interjected  remarks  was,  'The  country  will  find  how  we  regard  that  Abolition 
sneak,  Seward.'  "  Rhodes  says,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States.  Vol.  II.,  p. 
325:  "Lincoln  was  not,  however,  in  any  sense  of  the  word,  an  Abolitionist.  Whit 
ney,  too,  says,  in  his  On  Circuit  with  Lincoln,  p.  634,  "  He  had  no  intention  to  make 
voters  of  the  negroes — in  fact  their  welfare  did  not  enter  his  policy  at  all."  Rhodes 
quotes,  in  his  History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  IV.,  p.  64,  note,  testimony  of  General 
Wadsworth,  who  was  in  daily  communication,  frequently  for  five  or  six  hours, 
with  the  President  and  Stanton,  as  follows:  "He  never  heard  him  speak  of  anti- 
slavery  men  otherwise  than  as  'radicals/  'abolitionists;'  and  of  the  'nigger  ques 
tion'  he  frequently  spoke." 


The  Real  Lincoln.  211 

without  showing  any  dislike  to  the  slave-holders.  .  .  . 
We  were  not  (p.  481)  at  a  loss  to  get  at  the  fact  and  the 
reason  for  it,  in  the  man  before  us.  Descended  from  the 
poor-whites  of  a  slave  State,  through  many  generations, 
he  inherited  the  contempt,  if  not  the  hatred,  held  by  that 
class  for  the  negroes.  A  self-made  man,  ...  his 
strong  nature  was  built  on  what  he  inherited,  and  he  could 
no  more  feel  a  sympathy  for  that  wretched  race  than  he 
could  for  the  horse  he  worked  or  the  hog  he  killed.13  In 
this  he  exhibited  the  marked  trait  that  governed  his  public 
life.  .  .  .  He  knew  and  saw  clearly  that  the  people 
of  the  free  States  not  only  had  no  sympathy  with  the  aboli 
tion  of  slavery,  but  held  fanatics,  as  Abolitionists  were 
called,  in  utter  abhorrence.  While  it  seemed  a  cheap  philan 
thropy,  and  therefore  popular,  to  free  another  man's  slave, 
the  unrequited  toil  of  the  slave  was  more  valuable  to  the 
North  than  to  the  South.  With  our  keen  business  instincts, 
we  of  the  free  States  utilized  the  brutal  work  of  the  master. 
They  made,  without  saving,  all  that  we  accumulated.  .  . 
Wendell  Phillips,  the  silver-tongued  advocate  of  human 
rights,  was,  while  Mr.  Lincoln  was  talking  to  us,  being  ostra 
cised  at  Boston  and  rotten-egged  at  Cincinnati.  .  .  . 
The  Abolitionist  was  (p.  482)  hunted  and  imprisoned  under 
the  shadow  of  Bunker  Hill  Monument  as  keenly  as  he  was 
tracked  by  bloodhounds  at  the  South." 

Then  General  Piatt  candidly  repudiates  the  false  pre 
tensions  that  are  so  often  made  to  lofty,  benevolent  pur 
pose  in  those  who  "conquered  the  rebellion/'  and  ends  as 
follows:  "We  are  quick  to  forget  the  facts  and  slow  to 
recognize  the  truths  that  knock  from  under  us  our  preten- 

l3"Herndon's  Lincoln,  Vol.  V.,  p.  74  et  seq.,  tells  a  story  of  Lincoln's  barbarous 
cruelty,  etc." 


212  The  Real  Lincoln. 

tious  claims  to  high  philanthropy.  As  I  have  said,  aboli 
tionism  was  not  only  unpopular  when  the  war  broke  out, 
but  it  was  detested.  ...  I  remember  when  the 
Hutchinsons  were  driven  from  the  camps  of  the  Potomac 
Army  by  the  soldiers,  for  singing  their  Abolition  songs, 
and  I  remember  well  that  for  nearly  two  years  of  our  service 
as  soldiers  we  were  engaged  in  returning  slaves  to  their 
masters  when  the  poor  creatures  sought  shelter  in  our 
lines." 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

What  this  Book  Would  Teach. 

IN  VIEW  of  what  this  book  presents,  those  who  have 
learned  to  rate  Lincoln  highest  can  hardly  refuse 
to  modify  their  estimate  of  him,  and  it  was  with  the 
purpose  to  effect  such  a  change  in  men's  minds,  in  the 
interest  of  truth,  that  the  task  was  undertaken.  But  the 
search  in  Northern  records  has  taught  the  writer  another 
truth,  and  a  more  important  one,  that  he  was  far  from 
seeking.  To  gain  the  ear  of  the  people  of  Northern  pre 
judices  by  presenting  no  testimony  but  that  of  Northern 
witnesses  was  the  plan  adopted  in  seeking  materials  for 
this  sketch.  To  win  more  patient  hearing  from  people  of 
Southern  prejudices,  it  had  been  contemplated  to  put  on 
the  title  page  as  motto  Fas  est  ab  hoste  doceri.  But  the  search 
showed  that  the  North  and  the  West  were  never  enemies 
of  the  South;  that  those  who  disapproved,  deplored,  bit 
terly  censured  secession,  for  the  most  part  disapproved 
yet  more  coercion  of  sister  States  and  emancipation  of  the 
negroes,  while  a  vast  part  thought  the  South  was  asking 
what  she  had  a  right  to  ask. 

Should  we  forget  these  things  as  matters  of  reproach 
upon  our  country's  past?  Should  we  not  rather  recall 
them  now  and  earnestly  weigh  them  and  take  courage  from 
the  recollection  that  not  in  the  border  States  only,  but  in 
every  State,  many  men  were  found  ready  to  make  formid 
able  resistance  with  loss  of  fortune,  liberty,  and  life  to  what 
its  most  ardent  eulogists  call  a  complete  military  despotism? 

(213) 


214  The  Real  Lincoln. 

May  their  sons  work  with  us  to  prevent  or,  if  need  be,  to 
resist  like  evils  in  the  future! 

So  it  is  to  forgetfulness  of  the  sad  quarrel — to  love,  not 
to  resentment  or  hate — that  the  lessons  of  this  book  would 
lead  its  readers.  Those  who  taught  that  there  was  "an 
irrepressible  conflict"  between  the  North  and  South  were 
but  a  handful  of  fanatics — the  same  who  denounced  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  a  "  covenant  with  hell, 
and  a  league  with  death."1 

Is  it  not  shown  in  this  book  that  it  would  have  been 
nearer  the  truth  to  say  that  the  North  and  the  South  were 
essentially  of  one  accord  on  the  two  questions,  whether  a 
State  might,  at  least  as  a  revolutionary  right,  withdraw 
from  the  Union,  and  whether  the  negroes  should  be  emanci 
pated? 

Is  it  not  an  immense  gain  to  know  that  the  facts  were  as 
set  forth  above,  rather  than  go  on  believing  the  story  that 
has  spread  so  widely — that  one  side  carried  fire  and  sword 
into  the  homes  of  the  other  as  a  punishment  they  believed 
the  sufferer  well  deserved?  Can  those  who  suffered  the 
great  wrong  really  forgive  and  forget  while  events  are  so 
recorded  in  history? 


,  Gen.  B.  F.  Butler  says,  was     .     .     .     "the  proposition  of  the  Free- 
Soil  party,  as  enunciated  by  William  Lloyd  Garrison"  as  late  as  1849. 


Appendix 


ADAMS,  CHARLES  FRANCIS  (the  father),  was  Minister  to  England 
during  Lincoln's  whole  administration.  He  was  of  the  family 
that  had  given  two  Presidents  to  the  United  States,  and  his  father 
and  his  grandfather  had  been  Ministers  to  England  before  him. 

ADAMS,  CHARLES  FRANCIS,  son  of  the  above,  served  in  Union 
Army  throughout  the  War  between  the  States,  and  became  brevet 
Brigadier-General  of  Volunteers — now  President  of  Massachusetts 
Historical  Society.  His  extreme  partisan  attitude  is  shown  by 
the  extract  below  from  his  address  in  Chicago,  as  late  as  June  17, 
1902:  "As  to  those  who  sympathized  with  the  deliberate  disunion 
policy,  and  in  the  councils  of  the  government  plotted  for  its  over 
throw,  while  sworn  to  its  support,  Mr.  Adams  held  that  it  was 
unnecessary  to  speak.  'Such  were  traitors,'  says  he,  and  'if  they 
had  had  their  deserts  they  would  have  been  hanged.'  That  in  cer 
tain  'well-remembered  instances  this  course  was  not  pursued  is 
to  my  mind  even  yet  much  to  be  deplored,'  "  he  adds. 

ANDREWS,  E.  BENJAMIN,  once  President  of  Brown  University, 
is  still  prominent  in  educational  work.  He  shows  in  his  History 
of  the  United  States  (Vol.  II.,  pages  64,  77,  81  et  seq.}  that  he  is  an 
ardent  Abolitionist  and  an  admirer  of  Lincoln;  calls  John  Brown 
(p.  61,  et  seq.)  "a  misguided  hero,"  and  perverts  history  so  wildly 
as  to  say  (p.  89)  that  "Virginia  and  Tennessee  were  finally  carried 
into  secession  by  the  aid  of  troops  who  swarmed  in  from  the  se 
ceded  States,  and  turned  the  elections  into  a  farce.  Unionists 
in  the  Virginia  Convention  were  given  the  choice  to  vote  secession, 
leave,  or  be  hanged.  Missouri,  Kentucky,  Delaware  and  Mary 
land  resisted  all  attempts  to  drag  them  into  the  Confederacy."  .  .  . 

BURGESS,  JOHN  W.,  Ph.  D.,  LL.D.,  is  now  Professor  of  Political 
Science  in  Columbia  University.  He  says  in  his  Civil  War  and 
Constitution  that  "absolute  truthfulness  was  the  fundamental 
principle  of  his  (Lincoln's)  character,"  and  that  "he  was  on  the 
inside  a  true  gentleman,  although  the  outward  polish  failed  him 

almost  completelv." 

(215) 


216  Appendix. 

BUTLER,  GENERAL  B.  F.,  was  made  by  Lincoln  Major-General 
and  one  of  General  Grant's  corps  commanders,  and  was  Lincoln's 
first  choice  for  Vice-President  in  his  second  election. 

BEECHER,  REV.  HENRY  WARD,  brother  of  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe, 
was  a  strong  Republican  and  Abolitionist,  and  a  very  prominent 
supporter  of  the  war. 

BOUTWELL,  GEORGE  S.,  was  in  Congress  from  Massachusetts, 
aided  in  organizing  the  Republican  party  in  1854,  and  in  procuring 
Lincoln's  election,  and  was  made  by  Lincoln  the  first  Commissioner 
of  the  Internal  Revenue.  (See  name  of  Rice.)  Boutwell's  whole 
paper,  and  notably  in  the  last  pages,  is  full  of  the  most  ardent 
eulogies  of  Lincoln,  strong  and  unqualified  as  any  other. 

BROOKS,  PHILLIPS,  Bishop  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  Massachusetts,  His  Life  and  Letters  by  Alexander  V.  G.  Allen 
(New  York,  E.  P.  Button,  1900)  Vol.  II.,  p.  9,  says,  " In  Phila 
delphia  he  had  appeared  almost  as  a  reformer  and  agitator,  with 
a  work  to  do  outside  of  the  pulpit,  which  rivalled  in  importance 
and  popular  interest  his  work  as  a  preacher.  He  had  thrown  him 
self  into  the  cause  of  the  abolition  of  slavery  with  an  intensity  and 
rare  eloquence  which  was  not  surpassed  by  any  one.  He  had 
espoused  the  cause  of  the  emancipated  slaves,  pleading  in  most 
impassioned  manner  for  their  right  to  suffrage  in  order  to  their 
complete  manhood.  .  .  .  From  his  activity  in  these  moral 
causes  he  had  become  as  widely  known,  as  by  his  eloquence  in  the 
pulpit."  For  evidence  (Life  and  Letters,  by  Allen,  Vol.  I.,  p.  531) 
of  his  partisanship,  see  a  prayer  he  made  in  the  streets  of  Phila 
delphia  on  the  downfall  of  the  Confederacy.  In  the  large  page 
and  a  half  there  is  not  a  reference  to  the  miseries  of  the  defeated 
nor  an  aspiration  for  the  amendment  of  their  condition,  physical 
or  spiritual. 

CHANDLER,  ZACHARIAH,  SENATOR,  was  one  of  the  organizers 
of  the  Republican  party  in  1854;  United  States  Senator  from  1857 
to  1877;  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Appleton's  Cyclopaedia  of 
American  Biography  calls  him  "a  firm  friend  of  President  Lincoln." 

CHANNING,  EDWARD,  Professor  of  History  in  Harvard,  and  author 
of  Short  History  of  the  United  States,  quotations  from  which  show 
his  partisanship. 


Appendix.  217 

CHASE,  SALMON  P.,  was  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  till 
made  by  him  Chief  Justice. 

CHESNEY,  CAPT.  C.  C.,  Royal  Engineers,  Professor  of  Military  His 
tory,  Sandhurst  College,  England,  published  in  1863  A  Military 
View  of  Recent  Campaigns  in  Virginia  and  Maryland. 

COFFEE,  TITIAN  J.,  says  of  Lincoln  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  p.  246) 
.  .  .  "The  better  his  character  and  conduct  are  understood, 
the  brighter  will  he  shine  among  those  names  that  the  world  will 
not  willingly  let  die." 

CURTIS,  GEORGE  WILLIAM,  long  editor  of  Harper's  Weekly,  was 
a  widely  known  scholar  and  author.  The  quotations  from  his 
pen  show  how  he  stood  towards  the  war  and  Abolition.  His  pre 
judice  was  bitter  enough  to  make  him  institute  (Orations  and  Ad 
dresses,  Vol.  III.,  p.  10)  a  parallel  between  Robert  E.  Lee  and 
Benedict  Arnold;  and  he  must  be  accounted  an  unwilling  witness, 
since  he  adds  (Vol.  III.,  p.  219),  "Heaven  knows  I  speak  it  with 
no  willingness,"  after  his  testimony  that  is  quoted  of  his  own 
people's  resistance  to  emancipation  and  to  coercion. 

CRITTENDEN,  L.  E.,  was  Register  of  the  Treasury.  The  words 
quoted  show  his  attitude  toward  Lincoln. 

DANA,  CHARLES  A.,  was  long  managing  editor  of  the  New  York 
Tribune,  took  an  important  part  in  procuring  Lincoln's  election 
and  was  his  Assistant  Secretary  of  War.  See  his  book,  Recollec 
tions  of  the  Civil  War,  with  the  Leaders  at  Washington,  &c.,  N.  Y. 
Appleton  &  Co.,  1898. 

DANA,  RICHARD  H.,  was  a  distinguished  author  and  law-writer, 
was  nominated  by  President  Grant  for  Minister  to  England,  and 
was  a  representative  of  the  best  culture  of  Massachusetts.  It  was 
he  who  proposed,  in  Faneuil  Hall,  to  hold  the  Southern  States 
"in  the  grasp  of  war  for  thirty  years." 

DAVIS,  HENRY  WINTER,  though  a  Marylander,  was  an  ardent  sup- 
.    porter  in  Congress  of  the  war  and  of  emancipation. 

DAVIS,  DAVID,  is  named  by  McClure  in  his  Lincoln  with  Leonard 
Swett,  Ward  H.  Lamon  and  William  H.  Herndon  as  one  of  the 


218  Appendix. 

four  men  "closest  to  Lincoln  before  and  after  his  election."  He 
was  made  by  Lincoln  one  of  the  Supreme  Court  Justices,  and 
finally  executor  of  his  estate. 

DA  WES,  HENRY  L.,  represented  Massachusetts  in  the  House  for 
nine  sessions,  beginning  in  1857;  succeeded  Sumner  in  the  Senate, 
and  continued  there  till  he  declined  re-election  in  1893. 

DEPEW,  CHAUNCEY,  says  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  that  Lin 
coln  was  "among  the  few  supremely  great  men  this  country  has 
produced." 

DOUGLAS,  FREDERICK,  was  one  of  the  most  honored  and  respected 
colored  men  during  his  long  life,  with  everything  to  prejudice  him 
in  favor  of  Lincoln. 

DUNNING,  E.  O.,  was  chaplain  in  the  Union  army.  His  words 
quoted  show  his  attitude. 

DUNNING,  WILLIAM  ARCHIBALD,  Professor  of  History  in  Colum 
bia  University,  in  his  Essays  on  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction, 
pictures  with  merciless  exultation  (pages  247  to  252)  the  years  of 
humiliation  and  torture  imposed  on  the  South  during  the  "recon 
struction." 

EVERETT,  EDWARD,  had  been  Minister  to  England,  and  was  such 
another  man  as  Richard  H.  Dana,  ranking  even  higher;  was  in 
the  House  or  the  Senate,  or  Secretary  of  State,  or  Governor,  or 
President  of  Harvard  for  twenty-nine  years,  and  then  candidate 
for  Vice-President. 

FISKE,  JOHN,  historian  and  lecturer.  His  Old  Virginia  and  Her 
Neighbors  shows  his  Northern  bias. 

FOULKE,  WILLIAM  DUDLEY,  shows  in  his  words  quoted  his  par 
tisan  attitude. 

FREMONT,  J.  C.,  ran  against  Buchanan  as  "  Free-Soil  "  candidate  for 
the  presidency.  As  Major-General  he  proclaimed  freedom  to  the  ne 
groes  in  his  command  before  Lincoln's  Emancipation  Proclamation. 
Schouler  attributes  to  him  (History  of  the  United  States,  Vol.  VI., 
p.  98)  "patriotism,  integrity  and  humane  sentiment."  The  title 


Appendix.  219 

page  of  the  pamphlet  quoted  is  as  follows:  "Fund  Publication, 
No.  27.  President  Lincoln  and  the  Chicago  Memorial  on  Emanci 
pation;  a  paper  read  before  the  Maryland  Historical  Society  of 
December  12,  1887,  by  Rev.  W.  W.  Patton,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Presi 
dent  of  Howard  University,  Baltimore,  1888." 

FRENCH,  WILLIAM  M.,  shows  in  his  words  quoted  his  partisan 
attitude. 

GARRISON,  WILLIAM  LLOYD.  The  Dictionary  of  the  United 
States  History,  1492-1894,  by  J.  Franklin  Jamison,  Ph.  D.,  says, 
"Garrison's  influence  in  the  anti-slavery  cause  was  greater  than 
that  of  any  other  man;"  started  Liberator  newspaper  in  1831,  and 
ran  it  till  1865. 

GAY,  SIDNEY  HOWARD,  becamel  in  1844  editor  of  the  Anti-Slavery 
Standard.  Senator  Henry  Wilson  speaks  of  him  as  the  man  who 
deserved  well  of  his  country  because  he  kept  the  New  York  Tribune 
a  war  paper  in  spite  of  its  owner,  Horace  Greeley. 

GILMORE,  JAMES  R.  Appleton's  Encyclopaedia  says  that  a  mission 
to  Jefferson  Davis  made  by  Gilmore  had  the  effect  of  assuring  the 
re-election  of  Lincoln. 

GODKIN,  E.  L.,  was  long  and  until  lately  the  able  and  useful  editor 
of  the  Nation,  but  was  utterly  intolerant  as  to  all  that  concerns 
secession  and  slavery. 

GORHAM,  G.  C.,  author  of  a  late  life  of  Stanton,  which  shows  in  what 
is  quoted  his  partisan  attitude. 

GRANT,  U.  S.,  General  and  President,  is  obviously  the  most  trust 
worthy  of  all  witnesses  in  the  matters  about  which  he  is  quoted. 

GREELEY,  HORACE.  A.  K.  McClure  calls  (Our  Presidents  and  How 
We  Make  Them,  p.  243)  Greeley  "one  of  the  noblest,  purest,  and 
ablest  of  the  great  men  of  the  land ; "  calls  Greeley's  Tribune  (p.  155) 
"then  the  most  influential  journal  ever  published  in  this  country," 
and  says  (Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  p.  225  and  p.  295), 
"Greeley  was  in  closer  touch  with  the  active,  loyal  sense  of  the 
people  than  even  the  President  (Lincoln)  himself,"  and  that  "Mr. 


lEdward  Everett  Hale  in  James  Russell  Lowell,  His  Friends,  &c.,  pp.  174-5. 


220  Appendix. 

Greeley's  Tribune  was  the  most  widely  read  Republican  journal 
in  the  country,  and  it  was  unquestionably  the  most  potent  in 
modelling  Republican  sentiment.  It  reached  the  intelligent 
masses  of  the  people  in  every  State  in  the  Union."  Again  McClure 
says  (p.  300),  "Greeley  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  Republican 
party,  and  did  more  to  make  it  successful  than  any  other  one  man 
of  the  nation."  .  .  .  Dr.  E.  Benjamin  Andrews  says2,  "Gree 
ley  and  his  party  were  the  chief  founders  of  the  Republican  party, 
and  the  most  effective  moulders  of  its  policy.  The  influence  of 
the  paper  before  and  during  the  war  was  incalculable,  far  exceeding 
that  of  any  other  sheet  in  America.  Hardly  a  Whig  or  Republi 
can  voter  in  all  the  North  that  did  not  take  or  read  it.  It  gave 
tone  to  the  minor  organs  of  its  party,  and  no  politician  upon  either 
side  acted  upon  slavery  without  considering  what  the  Tribune 
would  say."  Gilmore  (Recollections  of  Lincoln,  p.  54)  has  a  letter 
from  Lincoln  to  Robert  J.  Walker,  which  says  of  Horace  Greeley: 
"He  is  a  great  power;  having  him  firmly  behind  me  will  be  as  help 
ful  to  me  as  an  army  of  an  hundred  thousand  men."  Channing 
(Short  History  of  the  United  States,  p.  300)  calls  Greeley"  one  of  the 
ablest  men  of  the  time." 

HALE,  EDWARD  EVERETT,  of  Boston,  well  known  author  and 
editor;, a  strong  partisan  of  the  North. 

HAMLIN,  HANNIBAL,  was  Lincoln's  Vice-President. 

HAPGOOD,  NORMAN.  His  Abraham  Lincoln  is  the  latest  import 
ant  biography,  published  in  1899.  It  shows  the  author's  attitude 
of  admiration  for  Lincoln  in  the  first  page  of  the  preface,  declaring 
that  he  was  "unequalled  since  Washington  in  service  to  the 
nation,"  and  quoting  the  verses — 

He  was  the  North,  the  South,  the  East,  the  West; 

The  thrall,  the  master,  all  of  us  in  one. 

See  under  names  of  Herndon  and  of  Lamon  his  endorsement  of 
their  "revelations." 

HAY,  JOHN,  Secretary  of  State  under  McKinley  and  Roosevelt,  came 
from  Springfield  with  Lincoln,  and  was  his  private  secretary,  as 
Nicolay  was,  to  his  death.  Their  joint  work,  Abraham  Lincoln, 
in  ten  large  volumes,  makes  the  most  favorable  presentation  of 

^History  of  the  Last  Quarter  Century  in  the  United  States,  Vol.  II.,  p.  58. 


Appendix.  221 

Lincoln  of  all  that  have  been  made.  They  are  the  editors,  too, 
of  the  only  collection  of  Lincoln's  complete  works.  See  the  name 
of  Nicolay  in  this  Appendix. 

HERNDON,  WILLIAM  H.  His  Lincoln,  dated  1888,  sets  forth  on 
the  title  page  that  Lincoln  was  for  twenty  years  his  friend  and 
law  partner,  and  says  in  the  preface  (p.  10):  "Mr.  Lincoln  was  my 
warm,  devoted  friend;  I  always  loved  him,  and  I  revere  his  name 
today."  He  quotes  with  approval  and  reaffirms  Lamon's  views 
as  to  the  duty  to  tell  the  faults  along  with  the  virtues,  and  says 
in  the  preface  (p.  10):  "At  last  the  truth  will  come  out,  and  no 
man  need  hope  to  evade  it;"  and  he  betrays  his  sense  of  the  seri 
ousness  of  the  faults  he  has  to  record  by  calling  them  in  the  pre 
face  (p.  9)  "ghastly  exposures,"  and  by  saying  in  the  preface  (p.  8) 
that  to  conceal  them  would  be  as  if  the  Bible  had  concealed  the 
facts  about  Uriah  in  telling  the  story  of  King  David;  and  the  very 
latest  biographer,  Hapgood,  writing  with  all  the  light  yet  given 
to  the  world,  says  in  his  preface  (p.  8):  "Herndon  has  told  the 
President's  early  life  with  a  refreshing  honesty  and  with  more 
information  than  any  one  else."  Morse,  the  next  latest  biographer, 
also  commends  Herndon's  dealing  in  this  matter.  See,  too,  on 
page  20.3  of  this  book,  Horace  White's  testimony,  that  "The  world 
owes  more  to  Mr.  Wm.  H.  Herndon  for  this  particular  knowledge" 
— that  is  of  his  life  before  he  was  President — "than  to  all  other 
persons."  See,  in  this  Appendix,  under  Swett's  name  how  Hern 
don's  extraordinarily  close  relations  with  Mr.  Lincoln  are  shown, 
and  see  under  Lamon's  name  how  Herndon's  testimony  and  La 
mon's  have  gone  uncontradicted.  Students  need  to  be  warned 
of  a  discovery  made  by  the  author  since  the  first  edition  of  The 
Real  Lincoln  was  published.  The  genuine  book  of  Herndon  about 
Lincoln  is  still  to  be  found  in  the  Pratt  Library  and  the  Peabody 
Library  of  Baltimore,  and  in  the  Congressional  Library  in  Wash 
ington,  in  three  volumes,  and  is  entitled  as  follows:  "Herndon's 
'Lincoln;  The  True  Story  of  a  Great  Life.'  (Etiam  in  minimis 
major.)  'The  History  and  Personal  Recollections  of  Abraham 
Lincoln,'  by  William  H.  Herndon,  for  Twenty  Years  His  Friend 
and  Partner,  and  Jesse  William  Weik,  A.  M.,  Chicago,  New  York 
and  San  Francisco.  Bedford,  Clarke  &  Co.,  Publishers,  London. 
Henry  J.  Drane,  Level's  Court,  Paternoster  row."  The  quotations 
above  given  of  Herndon's  avowal  of  his  purpose  to  conceal  nothing, 
come  from  this  book.  In  place  of  this  genuine  book  another 


222  Appendix. 

has  been  substituted,  in  two  volumes,  with  the  same  title  page, 
except  that  it  is  published  by  D.  Appleton  &  Co.  There  is  an 
introduction  by  Horace  White,  but  no  intimation  of  the  suppres 
sion  of  any  part  of  the  work  of  Herndon,  and  his  avowals  of  his 
purpose  to  tell  all,  good  and  bad,  about  his  hero,  are  copied  as 
above  from  the  genuine  book.  Every  word,  however,  of  the  "reve 
lations"  and  "ghastly  exposures"  is  suppressed.  Without 
acknowledgment  of  any  omission,  five  pages  of  the  genuine  book 
(beginning  with  the  second  line  of  fiftieth  page  of  the  first  volume) 
are  omitted.  In  these  pages  Herndon  records  a  satire  written  by 
Lincoln,  called  "The  First  Chronicle  of  Reuben,"  and  describes 
the  exceedingly  base  and  indecent  device  by  which  Lincoln  brought 
about  the  events  which  gave  opportunity  for  the  satire  and  adds 
some  verses  written  and  circulated  by  Lincoln  which  he  considers 
even  more  vile  than  the  "Chronicle."  Of  these  verses  Lamon 
says,  "It  is  impossible  to  transcribe  them."  Leland  (Abraham 
Lincoln,  (fee.,  pp.  12  and  13)  quotes  Lamon  and  Herndon,  and 
calls  (p.  42)  Herndon  "a  most  estimable  man,  to  whose  researches 
the  world  owes  nearly  all  that  is  known  of  Lincoln's  early  life 
and  family."  Yet  Leland  gives  a  list  of  the  authorities  he  uses 
and  omits  from  it  both  Lamon  and  Herndon.  In  like  manner 
some  influence  has  caused  the  American  Encyclopaedia  of  Bio 
graphy  to  omit  Herndon  and  Lamon. 

HOLLAND,  J.  G.,  was  a  popular  author,  and  was  long  editor  of  Scrib- 
ner's  Magazine.  For  his  ardent  admiration  of  Lincoln,  see  the 
last  page  of  his  Abraham  Lincoln. 

HUNTER,  DAVID,  was  made  Major-General  by  Lincoln,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  ardent  Abolitionists. 

JULIAN,  GEORGE  W.,  says  (Reminiscences  of  Lincoln,  &c.,  p.  64), 
"Every  lineament  of  his  grand  public  career  should  have  the  set 
ting  of  his  rare  personal  worth.  In  all  the  qualities  that  go  to 
make  up  character,  he  was  a  thoroughly  genuine  man.  His  sense 
of  justice  was  perfect  and  ever  present.  His  integrity  was  second 
only  to  Washington's,  and  his  ambition  was  as  stainless." 

KASSON,  JOHN  ADAMS,  was  a  conspicuous  Republican  in  Congress, 
honored  by  Lincoln  with  important  assignments  at  home  and 
abroad  in  the  Post-Office  Department. 


Appendix.  223 

KEIFER,  JOSEPH  WARREN,  was  Major-General  of  Volunteers; 
was  member  of  Congress  from  Ohio  and  Speaker  of  the  House; 
in  1900  wrote  Slavery  and  Four  Years  of  War,  G.  P.  Putnam,  pub 
lisher,  which  book  shows  his  partisan  attitude. 

LAMON,  WARD  H. ;  published  his  Life  of  Lincoln  in  1872.  He  appears 
in  the  accounts  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  life  in  the  West  as  constantly 
associated  in  the  most  friendly  relations  with  him.  He  accom 
panied  the  family  in  the  journey  to  Washington,  and  was  selected 
by  Lincoln  himself  (see  McClure's  Lincoln,  p.  46)  as  the  one  pro 
tector  to  accompany  and  to  guard  him  from  the  assassination  that 
he  apprehended  so  causelessly  (see  Lamon's  Lincoln,  p.  513)  in 
his  midnight  passage  through  Baltimore  to  his  first  inauguration. 
He  was  made  a  United  States  Marshal  of  the  District  in  order 
(McClure's  Lincoln,  p.  67)  that  Lincoln  might  have  him  always  at 
hand.  Schouler  (History  of  the  United  States,  p.  614)  says  that 
Lamon  as  Marshal  "made  himself  body-guard  to  the  man  he 
loved."  Though  Lamon  recognizes  and  sets  forth  with  great 
clearness  (p.  181)  his  duty  to  tell  the  whole  truth,  good  and  bad, 
and  especially  (p.  486,  et  seq.)  to  correct  the  statements  of  indis 
creet  admirers  who  have  tried  to  make  Lincoln  out  a  religious 
man,  and,  though  he  indignantly  remonstrates  against  such  stories 
as  making  his  hero  a  hypocrite,  the  book  shows  an  exceedingly 
high  estimate  of  the  friend  of  his  lifetime.  Dorothy  Lamon  (Recol 
lections  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  p.  168)  quotes  Lamon's  own  words 
as  follows:  "It  was  my  good  fortune  to  have  known  Mr.  Lincoln 
long  and  well — so  long  and  so  intimately  that,  as  the  shadows 
lengthen  and  the  years  recede,  I  am  more  and  more  impressed 
by  the  rugged  grandeur  and  nobility  of  his  character,  his  strength 
of  intellect  and  his  singular  purity  of  heart.  Surely  I  am  the  last 
man  on  earth  to  say  or  do  aught  in  derogation  of  his  matchless 
worth,  or  to  criticise  the  fair  fame  of  him  who  was,  during  eighteen 
of  the  most  eventful  years  of  my  life,  a  constant,  considerate, 
and  never-failing  friend."  Both  Morse  and  Hapgood  commend 
Lamon  and  Herndon  for  their  "revelations."  The  careful  search 
in  many  records  for  the  material  for  this  book  has  not  found  a 
single  attempt  to  deny  the  truth  of  Herndon's  testimony,  or  of 
Lamon's.  But  the  search  did  find  a  curious  proof  of  the  strait 
to  which  some  one  has  been  driven  to  conceal  Lamon's  testimony. 
In  the  Pratt  Library  in  Baltimore,  Maryland,  is  a  book  with  a 
title  as  follows:  "Recollections  of  Abraham  Lincoln,  1847-1865,  by 


224  Appendix. 

Ward  Hill  Lamon,  edited  by  Dorothy  Lamon,  Chicago,  A.  E. 
McClurg  &  Co.,  1895."  Nowhere  in  this  book  of  several  hundred 
pages  is  found  an  intimation  of  the  fact  that  the  same  Ward  Hill 
Lamon  published  in  1872  the  Life  of  Lincoln  quoted  frequently 
in  this  book,  or  that  he  had  published  any  book  about  Lincoln, 
and  although  these  ''Recollections"  do  contain  the  avowal  that 
appears  in  the  Life  of  Lincoln,  that  Lamon  thinks  it  his  duty  to 
conceal  none  of  the  faults  of  his  hero,  every  word  is  omitted  of 
the  "revelations"  and  "ghastly  exposures"  about  Lincoln's 
attitude  towards  morals  and  religion  that  are  recorded  in  Lamon's 
genuine  book.  Bancroft,  in  his  very  lately  published  Life  of 
Seward,  quotes  (Vol.  II. ,  p.  42)  Lamon  from  this  late  book,  making 
no  reference  to  the  genuine  book,  and  a  paper  in  the  Baltimore 
Sun  of  February  25,  1901,  does  the  same.  See  in  this  Appendix 
what  is  said  under  the  names  of  Herndon  and  Swett. 

LELAND,  CHARLES  GODFREY,  is  author  of  a  book  once  very 
popular,  Hans  Breitman's  Ballads.  In  his  Abraham  Lincoln,  and 
the  Abolition  of  Slavery  in  the  United  States  (G.  P.  Putnam's  Sons, 
New  York,  1881),  he  says  (Author's  Preface,  p.  2),  "Lincoln's 
career  also  proves  that  extremes  meet,  since  in  no  despotism  is 
there  an  example  of  any  one  who  governed  a  country  so  thoroughly 
in  detail  as  did  this  Republican  of  Republicans."  For  Leland's 
bitter  partisanship,  see  pp.  109,  121,  122,  186,  200,  202  and  220 
to  222. 

LOCKE,  DAVID  R.  (Petroleum  V.  Nasby).  Born  in  New  York  in 
1833;  an  American  political  satyrist;  author  of  Nasby's  letters, 
after  1860,  in  Toledo  Blade. 

LOGAN,  JOHN  A.,  Major-General.  His  book  about  the  war,  The 
Great  Conspiracy,  shows  throughout,  as  in  its  title,  his  partisan 
attitude.  He  served  under  Grant  at  Vicksburg,  and  under  Sher 
man  in  Georgia;  was  unsuccessful  Republican  candidate  for  vice- 
presidency  in  1864. 

LOWELL,  JAS.  RUSSELL,  long  professor  in  Harvard;  editor  of  At 
lantic  Monthly  1857  to  1862,  and  of  the  North  American  Review 
1863  to  1872;  Minister  to  Spain  and  to  England. 

MARKLAND,  A.  H.,  was  a  supporter  of  Mr.  Lincoln  for  the  presidency 
the  first  time;  was  in  charge  of  the  army  mail  service,  and  was 


The  Real  Lincoln.  225 

Commission-Colonel  on  General  Grant's  staff  in  November,  1863. 
He  was  the  only  person  besides  President  Lincoln  and  General 
Grant  who  ever  had  authority  to  pass  at  will  through  all  the 
armies  of  the  United  States,  thereby  showing  the  confidential 
relations  between  him  and  the  President  and  General  Grant. 

MCCARTHY,  CHARLES  H.,  is  author  of  Lincoln's  Plan  of  Recon 
struction.  Page  497  in  eulogy  of  Lincoln  nowhere  surpassed. 

McCLURE,  A.  K.  In  his  Lincoln  and  Men  of  the  War  Time,  and  in 
his  Our  Presidents  and  How  We  Make  Them,  the  author's  intimate 
association  with  Lincoln  is  shown  in  many  places  (Lincoln,  p.  112, 
et  seq.~),  and  his  attitude  towards  his  hero  may  be  measured  by 
the  following  tribute  (p.  5,  et  seq.) :  "He  has  written  the  most  illus 
trious  records  of  American  history,  and  his  name  and  fame  must 
be  immortal  while  liberty  shall  have  worshippers  in  our  land." 

McCULLOH,  HUGH,  author  of  Men  and  Measures  of  Half  a  Century, 
was  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  Lincoln,  Johnson  and  Grant. 
He  attributes  to  Lincoln  (Reminiscences  of  His  Associates,  p.  424) 
"Unwavering  adherence  to  the  principles  which  he  avowed —  . 
personal  righteousness —  .  .  .  love  of  country —  .... 
humanity —  .  .  . 

MORSE,  JOHN  T.,  published  in  1892  by  Houghton,  Mifflin  &  Co., 
his  Lincoln,  one  of  the  American  Statesmen  Series.  It  shows 
throughout,  but  notably  in  the  last  four  pages,  as  ardent  an  ad 
miration  for  Lincoln  as  any  other  biography.  It  concedes  (Vol.  I., 
p.  192)  the  truth  of  the  "revelations  of  Messrs.  Herndon  and 
Lamon"  and  the  duty  and  necessity  that  rested  on  them  to  record 
these  truths.  Morse  is  next  to  the  latest  of  the  biographers. 
The  Harvard  Graduates'  Magazine  said  of  the  book:  "As  a  life 
of  Lincoln  it  has  no  competitors;  as  a  political  history  of  the  Union 
side  during  the  Civil  War,  it  is  the  most  comprehensive  and,  in 
proportion  to  its  range,  the  most  complete." 

NICOLA Y,  JOHN  G.  (like  John  Hay),  came  with  Lincoln  from  Spring 
field,  and  was  his  private  secretary  to  the  end.  In  the  Author's 
Preface  to  the  great  work — "Abraham  Lincoln" — written  by  him 
and  John  Hay  (see  his  name  in  this  Appendix),  is  found  the  fol 
lowing  (Vol.  I.,  p.  9):  "It  is  the  almost  unbroken  testimony  of 
his  contemporaries  that  by  virtue  of  certain  high  traits  of  char- 

15 


226  The  Real  Lincoln. 

acter,  in  certain  momentous  lines  of  purpose  and  achievement, 
he  was  incomparably  the  greatest  man  of  his  time.  .  .  .  The 
voice  of  hostile  faction  is  silent  or  unheeded;  even  criticism  is 
gentle  and  timid  (p.  12).  We  knew  Mr.  Lincoln  intimately 
before  his  election  to  the  presidency.  We  came  from  Illinois  to 
Washington  with  him,  and  remained  at  his  side  and  in  his  service — 
separately  or  together — until  the  day  of  his  death.  .  .  .  The 
President's  correspondence,  both  official  and  private,  passed 
through  our  hands;  he  gave  us  his  full  confidence,  (p.  14) 
each  of  us  has  written  an  equal  portion  of  the  work.  .  .  .  We 
each  assume  responsibility,  not  only  for  the  whole,  but  for  all  the 
details."  .  .  . 

PARIS,  THE  COUNT  OF,  was  a  volunteer  in  the  Union  army.  See 
History  of  Civil  War  in  America,  translated  by  Tasiastro,  Phila 
delphia,  1875,  Vol.  IV.,  pages  2  to  7,  for  his  partisan  attitude. 

PATTON,  W.  W.,  was  President  of  Harvard  University,  for  negroes, 
in  Washington,  D.  C. 

PIATT,  BONN,  GENERAL,  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  (p.  449), 
refers  to  Lincoln  as  "the  greatest  figure  looming  up  in  our  history," 
and  as  one  "who  wrought  out  for  us  our  manhood  and  our  self- 
respect,"  and  says  (pp.  499-500),  ...  we  accept  the  sad, 
rugged,  homely  face  and  love  it.  ...  Clara  Morris  describes 
Piatt  (in  her  Life  on  the  Stage} ,  as  a  gentleman  of  delightful  social 
and  domestic  traits.  (See  name  of  Rice.) 

PHILLIPS,  WENDELL.  Appleton's  Encyclopedia  says  he  "began 
as  Abolitionist  leader  in  1837  ,  .  .  made  a  funeral  oration 
over  John  Brown  .  .  .  had  the  Anti-Slavery  Standard  for 
his  organ." 

POORE,  BEN  PERLEY,  was  a  distinguished  editor,  but  best  known 
as  Washington  correspondent;  was  Major  in  the  Eighth  Massachu 
setts  Volunteers.  His  book,  The  Conspiracy  Trial  for  the  Murder 
of  Abraham  Lincoln,  shows  his  partisan  attitude.  (See  name  of 
Rice.) 

RAYMOND,  HENRY  J.,  assistant  editor  of  the  New  York  Tribune, 
and  founder  of  New  York  Times;  Republican  Member  of  Congress 
from  New  York  1865-1867;  author  of  Life  and  State  Papers  of 
Abraham  Lincoln. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  227 

RHODES,  JAMES  FORD,  is  author  of  an  exceedingly  valuable  six- 
volume  History  of  the  United  States  that  (Vol.  IV.,  p.  50)  eulogizes 
Lincoln  ardently. 

RICE,  ALLEN  THORNDIKE,  was  long  editor  of  the  North  American 
Review,  a  leading  Republican  organ.  He  is  editor,  too,  of  Remin 
iscences  of  Lincoln  by  Distinguished  Men  of  His  Time,  frequently 
referred  to  in  this  book.  Rice  supplies  the  Introduction  and  is  more 
or  less  responsible  for  all  that  is  quoted  from  Piatt,  Usher,  Boutwell, 
Poore  and  Depew. 

RIDPATH,  JOHN  CLARK,  professor  in  Indiana  Asbury  University, 
published  his  History  of  the  United  States  in  1883,  of  which  see 
page  522  to  learn  his  attitude. 

ROPES,  JOHN  CODMAN,  author  of  the  Story  of  the  Civil  War,  which 
eulogizes  Lincoln.  No  historian  of  his  day  ranks  higher. 

RUSSELL,  WILLIAM  HOWARD.  His  My  Diary,  North  and  South, 
published  in  the  London  Times,  shows  a  bitter  aversion  to  slavery, 
and  to  almost  everything  he  saw  in  the  South,  and  he  shows  plainly 
his  judgment  that  it  was  the  right  and  duty  of  Lincoln  to  crush 
secession.  George  William  Curtis  says  in  his  Orations  (Vol.  I., 
p.  139)  about  Russell,  that  "Europe  sent  her  ablest  correspondent 
to  describe  the  signs  of  the  times,  and  that  Russell  saw  and  gave 
a  fair  representation  of  the  public  sentiment."  Adam's  Life  of 
Adams  (p.  151,  et  seq.)  speaks  of  Russell's  Diary  as  "the  views 
arid  conclusions  of  an  unprejudiced  observer  through  the  medium 
of  the  most  influential  journal  in  the  world." 

SCHOULER,  JAMES.  His  History  of  the  United  States  (p.  631 ,  et  seq.) 
shows  that  no  biographer  is  more  eulogistic  of  Lincoln.  Volume 
VI.  begins  with,  "The  further  we  recede  from  the  era  of  our  great 
civil  strife,  the  more  colossal  stands  out  the  figure  of  Abraham 
Lincoln."  .  .  .  See  also  Vol.  VI.,  page  624  to  end.  He  calls 
the  John  Brown  raid  (Vol.  VI.,  p.  437)  "a  sporadic  and  nonsensical 
movement;"  says  "the  pitiful  and  deluded  assailants"  were  not 
treated  "with  the  decent  magnanimity  for  which  so  good  an  oppor 
tunity  was  offered,  and  that  (p.  438)  "the  slave  master  showed  on 
this  occasion  his  innate  tyranny  and  cruelty  towards  an  adversary." 
He  likens  Brown  to  Charlotte  Corday,  saying  the  difference  was 
that  her  action  was  "reasonable,"  Brown's  "unreasonable." 


228  The  Real  Lincoln. 

SHERMAN,  JOHN,  President  McKinley's  first  Secretary  of  State, 
was  a  very  prominent  Republican  leader  during  the  war,  and 
served  in  the  Union  army  with  sword,  tongue,  pen  and  purse, 
raising  largely  at  his  own  expense  a  brigade  known  as  Sherman's 
Brigade. 

SHERMAN,  GENERAL  W.  T.,  the  man  who  next  after  Grant  was 
"Conquerer  of  the  Rebellion." 

SEWARD,  WILLIAM  H.,  was  Secretary  of  State  during  Lincoln's 
whole  administration,  and  accounted  one  of  his  ablest  supporters. 

SMITH,  GOLDWIN,  a  distinguished  historian  and  publicist;  professor 
of  History  for  two  years  in  Oxford,  and  for  three  years  in  Cornell. 
In  his  United  States,  an  Outline  of  Political  History  (p.  221,  et  seq.), 
it  is  claimed  that  Lincoln  was  a  Christian.  A  dreadful  picture 
is  given  (p.  222  to  225)  of  master  and  slave — of  the  slave  "over 
worked  and  tortured  with  the  lash" —  ...  of  "fetters  and 
blood-hounds"-  ...  of  "constant  dread  of  slave  insurrec 
tions";  that  "it  is  not  amongst  whips,  manacles  and  blood-hounds 
that  the  character  of  a  true  gentleman  can  be  trained;" 
that  "with  slavery  always  goes  lust;"  .  .  .  of  "a  clergy 
degraded  by  cringing  to  slavery." 

STANTON,  EDWIN  M.,  was  often  called  Lincoln's  "Great  War 
Secretary."  Appletori's  Encyclopedia  says:  "None  ever  ques 
tioned  his  honesty,  his  patriotism  or  his  capability." 

STANWOOD,  EDWARD.  His  History  of  the  Presidency  is  a  recog 
nized  authority,  with  no  Southern  leanings. 

STEVENS,  THADDEUS,  entered  Congress  in  1858,  and  from  that 
time  until  his  death  was  one  of  the  Republican  leaders,  and  the 
chief  advocate  for  emancipating  and  arming  the  negroes. 

SUMNER,  CHARLES,  was  long  Senator  from  Massachusetts,  and 
was  a  leader  in  support  of  the  war  and  emancipation. 

SWETT,  LEONARD.  See  his  very  close  relations  to  Lincoln,  shown 
under  the  name  of  David  Davis  in  this  Appendix. 

TARBELL,  IDA,  shows  constantly  in  her  histories  the  most  ardent 
admiration  for  Lincoln. 


The  Real  Lincoln.  229 

TRUMBULL,  LYMAN,  United  States  Senator,  declined  to  oppose 
Lincoln  for  the  nomination  in  1860,  and  was  one  of  the  first  to 
propose  in  the  Senate  the  abolition  of  slavery. 

USHER,  J.  P.,  was  in  Lincoln's  Cabinet  as  Secretary  of  the  Interior. 
He  says,  in  Reminiscences  of  Lincoln  by  His  Associates,  page  77, 
"Mr.  Lincoln's  greatness  was  founded  upon  his  devotion  to  truth, 
his  humanity  and  his  innate  sense  of  justice  to  all." 

WAR  OF  THE  REBELLION.  Official  Records  of  the  Union  and 
Confederate  Armies.  We  have  a  very  extraordinary  light  upon 
the  history  of  that  period  in  a  publication  made  by  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  which,  beginning  in  1870,  has  now  grown  to 
more  than  100  large  volumes,  "The  War  of  the  Rebellion,  Official 
Records  of  the  Union  and  Confederate  Armies."  The  history  of 
the  war  that  has  been  written  since  the  war  by  Jefferson  Davis 
or  U.  S.  Grant,  Alexander  Stephens  or  Charles  A.  Dana,  Joseph  E. 
Johnston,  John  Codman  Ropes,  and  all  the  rest  who  have  under 
taken  it,  may  be  distrusted  as  the  work  of  partisans,  or  of  men  too 
near  in  time  to  see  things  correctly.  But  we  are  getting  down  to 
the  real  truth  of  history  when  we  have  the  very  words  used  by 
Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  Cabinet  members,  by  General  McClellan  and 
his  subordinates  in  their  proclamations,  orders,  reports  and  cor 
respondence  during  the  months  when  active  "disloyalty"  was 
being  repressed  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union  that  were  within 
reach  of  Secretary  Seward's  "little  bell,"  and  especially  in  Mary 
land,  Kentucky,  Missouri,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Ohio,  and  New  York. 
It  will  be  seen  that  none  of  the  extracts  are  taken  from  the 
Confederate  record,  they  are  all  from  the  Union  records,  and  in 
all  cases  the  volume  and  page  are  referred  to. 

WADE,  BEN,  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  Republican  leaders. 
Ohio  Senator  from  1851  to  1869.  Anti-slavery  leader.  Favored 
confiscation  in  the  war,  and  emancipation. 

WEBB,  ALEXANDER  S.,  LL.  D.,  professor  in  College  of  City  of  New 
York,  says,  as  follows,  in  his  Campaigns  of  the  Civil  War,  III; 
McClellan' s  Campaign  of  1862,  preface,  page  6,  that  "In  speaking 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  his  advisers,  he  (the 
author)  must  not  be  considered  as  rescinding  or  changing  at  any 
time  his  constant  and  repeated  expressions  of  admiration,  affec 
tion  and  regard  for  the  President  himself.  He  appeals  'to  the 


230  The  Real  Lincoln. 

closing  chapter  ...  to  prove  that  he  is  as  loyal  to  that  noble 
man's  memory  as  ever  he  was  to  him  in  person,  and  is  but  doing 
the  work  of  an  honest  historian  in  recording  the  sad  tale  of  the 
want  of  unity,  the  want  of  confidence,  the  want  of  co-operation 
between  the  Administration  and  the  General  commanding  the 
army.' " 

WELLING,  JOS.  C.,  editor  of  National  Intelligencer  at  Washington 
during  the  Civil  War;  afterwards  President  of  St.  John's  College, 
Annapolis;  then  President  of  Columbia  University. 

WELLES,  EDGAR  THADDEUS,  was  Lincoln's  Secretary  of  the 
Navy. 

WHITE,  HORACE,  had  a  distinguished  career  in  journalism  for 
forty  years;  was  editor  of  Chicago  Tribune  and  of  the  New  York 
Evening  Post. 

WHITNEY,  HENRY  CLAY,  shows  his  exceedingly  high  estimate 
of  Lincoln  in  the  last  page  of  his  On  Circuit  with  Lincoln. 

WILSON,  WOODROW,  was  long  a  distinguished  and  popular  pro 
fessor  in  Princeton,  and  is  now  President.  For  his  admiring  atti 
tude  towards  Lincoln,  see  pages  216  and  217  of  his  Disunion  and 
Reunion,  and  Vol.  IV.,  page  256  of  his  History  of  the  American 
People. 

WINTHROP,  ROBERT  H.,  was  eminent  as  a  scholar  and  statesman; 
was  ten  years  in  the  House,  and  then  in  the  Senate  from  Massach 
usetts. 

YOUNG,  JOHN  RUSSELL,  had  a  distinguished  career  in  journalism, 
especially  in  the  Tribune  group  with  Horace  Greeley. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


9l,,1'?)7^I~ 

J-Jp*^*.^     .    ._ 

REC'D  CD  ^ 

*TE,U  o  LD 

iiD         r  f  r^  A      it 

RECTO  g?, 

^K    6  64  -11  AM 

JUL2    1957 

.    •        imtfPG  5 

4%'58T5  ] 

REC'D  LD 

APR    31953 

r\ftMav60"^ 

i-J 

_m_        _      '«MC 

-.- 
JUT  *W> 

MRR  5    1560 

65aar'64MM 

LD  21-100m-6,'56 
(B9311slO)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


YB  37576' 


A?- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


